Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS (HULL DOCKS) BILL

LERWICK HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

MALLAIG HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

NORTH WALES HYDRO ELECTRIC POWER

Ordered,

That the Committee on the North Wales Hydro Electric Power Bill have leave to visit and inspect the site of the works proposed in the Bill provided that no evidence shall be taken in the course of such visit and that any party who has made an Appearance before the Committee be permitted to attend by their Counsel or Agent.—[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Mutton and Lamb Imports

Mr. Moate: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what import duty is now imposed on mutton and lamb imports from Australia and New Zealand.

The Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Anthony Stodart): The present United Kingdom tariff on mutton and lamb, other than whole bone in mutton carcases, is £0·9335 per cwt. For whole mutton carcases, the tariff is £0·4667 per cwt.

Mr. Moate: Does my hon. Friend agree that from 1st January next we shall be progressively adopting a 20 per cent. tariff on sheep meat imports? As there is no Community policy on sheep meat, will my hon. Friend explain what possible justification there is for adopting this quite unnecessary tax on food?

Mr. Stodart: This is a matter which will be discussed in due course.

Mr. Jay: What is the use of the Government's pretending that Government policy is not responsible for the rise in food prices when the Government themselves have imposed this and a whole series of other food taxes in the past year?

Mr. Stodart: The tariff has nothing whatever to do with the price of lamb. New Zealand supplies have been heavily reduced, not only by drought but by retention for breeding.

Mr. Buchan: This is really not good enough. With whom will this matter be discussed? Is it not the responsibility of the Government to decide this matter? Will they stop giving us this nonsense that it is everyone else's responsibility except theirs? Are they not saying, in fact, that they are quite willing to accept a food tax on the people of this country against a background of exploding prices?

Mr. Stodart: The matter will be discussed in the Council of Ministers in due course. The hon. Gentleman talks about making excuses, but he has been so busy making excuses throughout his period in office that he does not know the difference between excuses and the facts of life.

Common Agricultural Policy

Mr. Russell Kerr: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals for the reform of the common agricultural policy he now intends to make to the EEC.

The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Joseph Godber): I have made my general views known on a number of occasions. I now await the report which the Commission is to make to the Council of Ministers for consideration later this year.

Mr. Kerr: Is the Minister aware that this still represents a very bad deal for


the people of this country? Will not he press for major reforms in the CAP?

Mr. Godber: I have indicated on many occasions that I want to see amendments made to the CAP. This is entirely in line with Government policy. It is because of this and other representations that have been made that the Commission is having this major consideration. I am told that it will come back to Ministers on the Council, probably in the early autumn of this year.

Mr. Brewis: Is it not the case that although the Leader of the Opposition said that the CAP was not negotiable, by being within the club my right hon. Friend has got M. Lardinois to agree that it should be reviewed?

Mr. Godber: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is true that when in office the Leader of the Opposition made it very plain that in his view the CAP was not negotiable. In my view, its principles are not negotiable, but its operation and its various aspects are certainly open to discussion and amendment. This is what we shall be talking about.

Mr. Deakins: Are the Government opposed to the continuation of export subsidies which not only distort world agricultural trade but are very expensive for the British taxpayer?

Mr. Godber: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that these taxes—I imagine that these are the taxes about which he is thinking—are a part of the CAP. I shall certainly not criticise individual aspects here; I shall be criticising them in the Council of Ministers, which is where I ought to make my comments.

Sir D. Renton: Will my right hon. Friend press for production grants, which stimulate agricultural expansion without inflating consumer prices?

Mr. Godber: Yes. My right hon. and learned Friend is right. This is a valuable aspect of the British system, which I hope we shall operate to a greater extent within the Community. This is one of the things for which I pressed very hard at the recent Luxembourg meetings. As a result of that pressure we have now got a commitment, for instance, in relation to the hill fanning subsidy.

Agricultural Investment Societies (Investment Limit)

Mr. David James: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will introduce legislation to enable a farmer-member of an Agricultural Cooperative Society to make a substantially larger investment than the present upper limit of £1,000.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: The Government have undertaken to introduce legislation as soon as time permits to raise the maximum shareholding in a co-operative society registered under the industrial and provident societies legislation. This will be a matter for my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, who is responsible for the Registry of Friendly Societies.

Mr. James: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he indicate to what the limit will be raised?

Mr. Stodart: That is a matter I would wish to leave to my right hon. Friend to inform the House about in due course.

EEC Agricultural Prices

Mr. Deakins: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, what common agricultural prices in the EEC were not increased at the recent meeting of Agriculture Ministers.

Mr. Godber: As the hon. Member will have seen from the reply which I gave him on 9th May, no change was made in the common prices for seeds for sowing or for certain types of tobacco. The intervention price for butter was reduced. —[Vol. 856, c. 120–6.]

Mr. Deakins: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that most of the prices of the foods that people eat in this country were increased across the board? Surely that means that, irrespective of the effects in the next year, by the end of the transitional period the British housewife will be paying higher prices for most commodities than would otherwise have been the case.

Mr. Godber: When I returned to the House I made clear, I think, precisely what the increases were, so that the hon. Member is right in saying that there were increases for many commodities. But the point I was trying to stress was


that for particular commodities the increase was much less than had been called for by some Ministers. In particular, I attach great importance to keeping the increase on cereals as low as 1 per cent.

Mr. Body: Is it true that the import levy—some might call it the penal taxation—on cheese has risen, this week, from £164 to £245·44? Will this not have a serious effect on prices, or will it merely mean that we shall not be able to import cheese from third countries from now on?

Mr. Godber: Speaking from recollection, I cannot accept the hon. Member's figures. As far as I recall the figure is substantially less than the one given by my hon. Friend. There is a later Question on the Order Paper about butter and cheese, and I shall seek to deal with the matter then.

Agricultural Mortgage Corporation (Interest Rates)

Mr. Evelyn King: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make representations to the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation in respect of the rates of interest it is now charging in order to encourage new programmes of capital investment.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: No, Sir. I believe that the confidence which the industry is displaying should give ample incentive for new investment.

Mr. King: Is my hon. Friend aware that already, under the Farm Capital Grants Scheme, the contribution has been reduced from 30 per cent. to 20 per cent. and the number of items upon which grants can be claimed has been reduced? In addition, the AMC mortgage rate has gone up to 12 per cent., which must mean a withdrawal of capital in the industry and an increase in the cost of food. If the Government can make representations to building societies on interest rates can they not make equal representations to a body on which they have more influence?

Mr. Stodart: The reason for the temporary bridging grant to the building societies has been explained and the same considerations do not apply here. I remind my hon. Friend that there was a record amount of lending by the AMC in the year up to 31st March, and there

has been no sign of a fall off since 1st April, although the grant to which he referred was cut.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Does the Minister agree that the AMC is not paying a substantial part in the provision of agricultural credit? Are there any institutions of the EEC which enable credit to be given, especially for those who are starting up in farming and for farmers who are tenants and wish to purchase their farms? Has the Minister given further consideration to the establishment of a land bank?

Mr. Stodart: All these matters will have to be discussed within the Council of Ministers. The point to which the hon. Member referred about grants for young men starting up in farming was one with which I dealt in the Adjournment debate initiated by a Labour Member before Easter.

Food Prices

Mr. Eadie: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the percentage increase in the price of fresh fruit since June 1970.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Peggy Fenner): There is no retail price index for fresh fruit as such but the fruit sub-group of the Index of Retail Food Prices, which also includes canned and dried fruits, showed an increase of 39 per cent. between June 1970 and March 1973.

Mr. Eadie: Does the Parliamentary Secretary agree that other figures have shown that at least up to a few weeks ago there was a 100 per cent. increase in the price of fresh fruit? Does she also agree that it is hardly a compliment to her Ministry and her Government that they should be labelled as the ones responsible for introducing the 5p apple? Can she tell the House whether the fortunes of the British people under the yoke of this Government are that they must face an increase of 50 per cent. a year in the price of fresh fruit?

Mrs. Fenner: I hope that the hon. Member realises that the price of apples increased because of the extremely poor harvest last year. [Interruption.] We have become accustomed to believing that Governments and Oppositions can do most things, but they cannot direct


whether there should be a good or bad apple crop. In fairness, the hon. Member should also realise that the figure he quotes includes the cost of dry fruit, which must take account of the Californian crop failure last year—[Interruption.]— which is also something that Oppositions can do nothing about. The price of dried fruit doubled in May of last year.

Mr. Torney: I hope that the Government will be able to do something about the price of oranges. Because Italy is the only producer within the EEC, the EEC insists that our prices should be affected by the high prices of the inefficient Italian orange industry, and therefore we may see not only the 5p apple but the l0p orange. What will the Minister do about that?

Mrs. Fenner: My right hon. Friend will be discussing the question of the CAP in due course. I trust that the prophetic comments about the apple are as inaccurate as those by the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) last week about the bob banana.

Mr. David Stoddart: Will the Parliamentary Secretary tell us where the supplies of cheap, fresh fruit that were promised to us by the supporters of entry into the EEC have gone since we joined? They certainly have not materialised yet. Will she confirm that in order to keep prices up fruit trees are being grubbed out not only on the Continent but in this country?

Mrs. Fenner: They did not have a successful apple harvest on the Continent, either. [Interruption.] However, British horticulturists will continue to grow the sort of apples for which they are famous and which we grow in good quality and quantity in a normal crop year.

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many claims for food price increases are currently under examination by the Price Commission.

Mrs. Fenner: I understand that information on such applications, if and when granted, is being made available by the Price Commission.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the hon. Lady aware that I purchased three bananas at a cost of 16½p, which worked out at 1s. 3d. per

banana in old money, and not the shilling that I suggested. I was being unduly modest in my estimate. Will she tell the House exactly what her job is, other than counting the number of price increases? Is she not aware that only yesterday the Price Commission said that the prices of marmalade, cooking fats, oil, jams and other things, including breakfast foods, were going up soon? What is she doing now except to say that there has been a bad harvest in China or Chile, or somewhere else?

Mrs. Fenner: Price increases have to come within the criteria set within phase 2, and that is a matter for the Price Commission. The commodities to which the hon. Member referred and on which the Commission announced its approval yesterday have all been thoroughly scrutinised in order to ensure that they comply with the terms of the Price and Pay Code. I have taken note of the hon. Member's difficulties with bananas. He could certainly do with some help with his shopping. I purchased six bananas for 17p—and I do not have the time to shop around.

Mr. Molloy: Is the hon. Lady aware that the effect of the savage increases in the prices of fresh fruit is compounded by the fact that under this Government for millions of working-class people the saucepan and the frying pan are becoming obsolete?

Mrs. Fenner: The question in hand relates to information and decisions taken by the Price Commission.

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the percentage increase in the cost of food since 6th November 1972 to the latest convenient date.

Mr. Meacher: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by how much food prices have risen since 6th November 1972.

Mr. Skinner: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the increase in food prices since 6th November 1972.

Mr. Torney: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what increase there has been in retail food prices since 6th November 1972.

Mrs. Fenner: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave on 10th May to the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Ewing).—[Vol. 856, c. 734.]

Mrs. Short: We are used to the hon. Lady's attempts to whitewash this whole disgraceful business. In addition to the increases which my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) has mentioned—which were not included when she last gave a percentage figure—is she aware that when the increases are translated into cash it means that approximately l0p a 1b.—that is two bob a pound—must be put on streaky bacon? Is she further aware that bread prices have risen, and that the prices of ham as well as fruit and vegetables, have risen?
When she says that the Price Commission is considering all applications on their merits, does she know that of the 177 requests for price increases from the large firms, nearly half come from food manufacturing firms? Is she aware that the increases must be allowed if the Commission does not reply to the firm within a month? What is the Commission supposed to be doing? It is a big confidence trick.

Mrs. Fenner: The hon. Lady has mentioned bread prices. To my knowledge the Price Commission has not announced such an increase. The hon. Lady has referred to another list of applications. It would be unwise to assume—

Mrs. Short: Allowed yesterday.

Mrs. Fenner: No, the ones to which the hon. Lady referred were referred to in a Question by the hon. Member for Fife, West, and are not included in the list which she purports to pretend is before the Commission.

Mrs. Short: They were allowed.

Mr. Charles Morrison: Will my hon. Friend say how the influence of seasonal factors on retail food prices this year compared with that of other years?

Mrs. Fenner: This year the seasonal fluctuation was 19·9 per cent. In the winter of 1968–69 it was 16·3 per cent. and in the winter of 1969–70 it was 15 per cent.

Mr. Torney: Is the hon. Lady, by her scant answers to these questions, trying

to cover up the fact that during the freeze the increase has been double that which occurred in previous similar periods? That in itself is sufficiently scandalous, but— even worse—is she aware that the Government, by their policy of high food prices and low wages, are inflicting a double hardship on hundreds of thousands of workers earning less than £15 a week? They catch it both ways, with high food prices and low wages.

Mrs. Fenner: I assure the hon. Gentleman that my reply was not intended to be scant. I merely did not wish to repeat the figure of 7·3 per cent. in the food index, which has not changed. Only 1·4 per cent. of that relates to manufactured food. The rest relates to seasonal factors similar to those which the Labour Government had to contend with at the same time of the year. That 1·4 per cent. increase is the lowest increase in that range of food for the last seven years.

Mr. Rost: Will my hon. Friend put these food price rise figures in their proper perspective by telling the House by how much the average weekly bill for food has increased in cash terms and by how much more the average earnings and take-home pay have increased over this period?

Mrs. Fenner: The figures I have quoted are that over the two-and-a-half years the average wage increase was 35 per cent., and pensions increased by 35 per cent. By October, pensions will have increased by 55 per cent. The proportion spent on food is a little less than one-quarter of an average family's income. Of that quarter, only about half relates to seasonal foods which neither the Labour Government nor this Government could control.

Mr. Buchan: Is not the hon. Lady skating on thin ice during the freeze? Is she not aware that in the six months to March this year the price of seasonal foods, on her statistics, has risen by 23·8 per cent.? If she wants to get off the seasonal hook, will she look at the price of non-seasonal foods between October and March? On her figures, those prices have increased by more than the increases which occurred during the same six-monthly periods in 1968–69 and 1969–70 put together? Will she stop deceiving the House?

Mrs. Fenner: I strongly resent the suggestion that I am deceiving the House.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: You are deceiving yourself!

Mrs. Fenner: My valid point is that in this period average wages have increased by 35 per cent., which keeps them well ahead of prices—

Mrs. Renée Short: There are other things besides food—rents and fares.

Mrs. Fenner: The Prime Minister made it clear in a reply that he would consider threshold agreements in stage 3.

Mr. Duffy: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many applications for price increases from firms he received during stage 1; how many he granted; and how many-price reductions he ordered.

Mrs. Fenner: During stage 1 my right hon. Friend received 1,288 individual applications for price consents. He gave consent for price increases involving 13 products or groups of products sold generally to consumers; 12 intermediate products not sold generally direct to consumers; 66 specialised commodities made by individual manufacturers.
There were 1,430 cases involving food price increases in breach of the requirements of stage 1, but in every case the trader concerned reduced his price voluntarily to the correct level. It was therefore unnecessary for my right hon. Friend to serve any orders under the Counter-Inflation (Temporary Provisions) Act 1972.

Mr. Duffy: Is the Minister aware that most people believe not merely that many prices were increased during stage 1 but that those increases were allowed to remain? In view of her answer, does she not think that her Department was less than vigilant? Has it not acted in the face of public belief and experience?

Mrs. Fenner: My Department followed up and investigated thoroughly every matter laid before it. Every price increase which was unjustified was properly reduced, and there was therefore no need to make an order.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: Is the Minister aware that the whole House welcomed

her appointment and waited with bated breath when the Press referred to her as "Prices Peg". Is she further aware that in the six months of the freeze food prices rose nine times as fast as they did in the corresponding six months the year before? In view of that fact, does not she think that she ought to be renamed by the Press, or resign?

Mrs. Fenner: I have often had reason to regret my name, and perhaps this is another reason. The hon. Gentleman referred to the increases and I have rehearsed the arguments very often. They are all on the fresh and imported food side; and on the imported side there are matters over which we do not have control. On the fresh food side, for the very same reasons, the Labour Government could not control the prices.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of food price increases are excluded from the effects of the Counter-Inflation Act because they are classified as imported.

Mrs. Fenner: It is not possible to estimate in advance what percentage of the food price increases during stage 2 of the counter-inflation programme will be on imported products.

Mr. Huckfield: Since the hon. Lady keeps giving answers in this House and in correspondence to the effect that the Government cannot control fresh food and cannot control seasonal food, and since it is well known that a large percentage of food is imported and they cannot have any control over that food either, why do the Government continue the pretence of seeking to control food prices?

Mrs. Fenner: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. We import about half of our total food requirements. It has been made clear throughout the counter-inflation programme that prices of imported goods from overseas suppliers could not be controlled, but the margins of the United Kingdom distributors which affect prices in the shops are controlled.

Mr. Kaufman: Is the hon. Lady aware that in the city of Manchester prices of fresh foods in shops where ordinary working people go to buy their provisions are in many cases higher than in the most


expensive shopping areas in London? For example, is she aware that tomatoes are selling at 4p each, or 9½d. in old money, whereas wages are far below the London level? In face of this situation, should not something be done about wages to make sure that my constituents can buy fresh food?

Mrs. Fenner: I cannot entirely accept the hon. Gentleman's comments about the differences in prices between Manchester and other parts of the country. I remind him that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear in an answer on 1st May that he is willing to consider threshold agreements with the CBI and TUC in phase 3.

International Sugar Agreement

Mr. Alfred Morris: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the latest position regarding determination of the EEC negotiating position in the current International Sugar Agreement talks.

Mr. Godber: At the first session of these talks, the Community has proposed the extension of the present agreement, in the light of the situation on the world market and the uncertainty as to the future sugar policy of a number of countries, including that of the Community itself. This negotiating position will be reviewed in time for the second session, which begins in September.

Mr. Morris: Will the right hon. Gentleman press the EEC for a definitive assurance that there will be continuing access for at least 1·4 million tons of Commonwealth sugar? Will he ask the EEC to go beyond aura à coeur and fully endorse the Lancaster House agreement?

Mr. Godber: With respect, the hon. Gentleman has put two separate points. The forthcoming sugar agreement is a matter that is being considered separately from the ISA. That is a matter which will be discussed under Protocol 22. The arrangement for 1·4 million tons is one to which this country is firmly committed by the undertakings given here. I have no reason to believe that we will not honour it. The International Sugar Agreement is a wider aspect, and the important thing is to see that the Community adopts a positive attitude. That is the influence which we are seeking to exert.

Sir Robin Turton: As, previously, the EEC has refused to co-operate with the International Sugar Agreement, is not it absolutely vital that at an early stage, and before the resumption in October, the EEC makes a declaration that with Britain in the Community it will cooperate with the International Sugar Agreement? Further, the EEC should outline its attitude towards cane sugar production and the refining of cane sugar. So far, it has been highly unco-operative.

Mr. Godber: I remind my right hon. Friend that the undertaking given at the UNCTAD conference at Santiago was not a binding commitment but a clear indication. We are using our influence within the Community to ensure that we get a positive attitude when the next session meets.

Mr. Buchan: Is that good enough? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that it is enough to say that he is using his influence when we passed an Act in this House on the assurance which we received aura à coeur and everything else. We still have not obtained agreement on that assurance. There is a dangerous situation facing the producer countries. The right hon. Gentleman must do better than this.
There is a double problem. First, there is the continuing access in respect of the 1·4 million tons. Along with that is the expansion taking place within the EEC and the danger of unloading that sugar on to the world market, with the consequent effect on the cane producing countries. The right hon. Gentleman must see that as his No. 1 priority if he is serious about the influence which he claims to have on the EEC.

Mr. Godber: The hon. Gentleman is confusing two issues. There are two quite clear and separate issues. One is the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. I have no reason to believe that the Community will not honour the undertaking that was given in this House when the time comes. This is a matter for negotiation by the Commonwealth countries for operation after 1974. It was because I wished to ensure that this went smoothly that I called a meeting of the Commonwealth countries at Lancaster House two months ago. I consider that a useful meeting took place. The issue of the International Sugar Agreement is a wider issue


altogether. At present no quotas are operating because of the high price of sugar. No one can say that the issue is urgent in the context of the immediate future. I agree that we must get a satisfactory outcome and I want to see the Community playing a full part. The argument that the Community has put forward so far is that we should continue with the present arrangement for another two years. This affects not only the Community but certain other countries whose arrangements go on after 1974.

Mr. Marten: As we are a signatory to the International Sugar Agreement and the Common Market is not a signatory, if the Common Market decides that it will not become a signatory to the International Sugar Agreement have we the sovereignty left in this Parliament to be a signatory to the International Sugar Agreement on our own without the Common Market?

Mr. Godber: We must first seek to ensure that the Community belongs to the International Sugar Agreement. On the specific point which my hon. Friend raised, it is an important understanding that as a member of the Community we shall be able to play our part in the International Sugar Agreement but there will not be a position outside the Community.

Australian Sugar Imports

Mr. Body: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with the Queensland authorities on the future import of Queensland sugar into the United Kingdom.

Mr. Heffer: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether the Australian cane-sugar quota will be cut off completely after 1974.

Mr. Godber: The effect on Australia's trade of our accession to the Community has been discussed with the Australian Government on a number of occasions. Reference has been made in these discussions to Protocol 16 of the Treaty of Accession, which provides for the possibility of remedial measures by the Community if particular problems arise. So far as sugar is concerned, we have made it clear that we would support a proposal from Australia under Protocol 16 for the phasing out of their present

exports to this country after 1974 rather than their abrupt termination.

Mr. Body: My right hon. Friend will realise that my Question was about the Queensland authorities, and whether he had had any discussions with them. Will he say whether he has had such discussions? Will he say whether we are willing to give a firm undertaking that these supplies will not be discontinued abruptly and that they will be phased out over a period of years?

Mr. Godber: Our discussions take place with the Australian federal authorities rather than with the Queensland authorities. I think that that is the normal way for us to conduct any discussion. We are in close touch with Australia and it is for Australia to make the first move. It would be improper for me to comment further about Australia's attitude.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is widespread feeling in Queensland that farmers there have been badly let down? Is he aware that some distinguished representatives of Queensland will be in this country in the near future? Will he undertake to discuss these matters with them?

Mr. Godber: We must conduct our negotiations officially with the Australian authorities as a whole. I shall be happy to talk with the Queensland authorities, but these discussions must take place on the normal basis of discussions between countries. It would be difficult for us to go beyond the normal channels.

Butter, Cheese and Lamb Imports

Mr. Jay: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will consider the removal of the import duty now imposed on butter, cheese and lamb imported from the Commonwealth.

Mr. Godber: No, Sir. Butter and cheese imports from all Commonwealth countries other than New Zealand are subject to import levies abated during the transitional period by compensatory amounts. There are lower levies on New Zealand butter and cheese.
I interpose to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body), in connection with his supplementary question on Question No. 6, that


after I told him that his figure was not, in my view, correct, I checked it and found that it was. I apologise to him for that error. The figure he gave for cheese imported from Canada was £245 a ton. That is the correct figure.
To complete the answer, so far as lamb is concerned, our present import duty amounts to 0·8p per 1b.

Mr. Jay: What is preventing the Government from removing these heavy food taxes, which are unnecessarily keeping up the price of food?

Mr. Godber: The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the adoption of the common agricultural policy imposed certain obligation on the United Kingdom. He is always trying to distort the position to make it appear far worse than it is. To put it in its right perspective, although the Canadian figure is very high, the imports from there were negligible before the import duty was imposed. The important import of Commonwealth butter and cheese is from New Zealand, for which there are special arrangements.

Mr. Jay: indicated dissent.

Mr. Godber: It is no good the right hon. Gentleman shaking his head. There are special arrangements with New Zealand, and if he does not know it he should ask the New Zealanders.

Mr. Body: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that now that we have progressively increased the levy from £92 a ton to £245 a ton on Canadian butter it is impossible for Canada, which provided us with comparatively cheap cheese, to gain access to this country? No Canadian Cheddar cheese is able to come here.

Mr. Godber: I have discussed this matter with the Canadian Minister concerned. I remind my hon. Friend again that the bulk of Cheddar cheese that comes from overseas comes from New Zealand, and the levy on New Zealand cheese is £84·50. That is the contrast.

Mr. Lipton: Is not the fact that whether we like it or not, we are completely enslaved by the common agricultural policy and that any questions we address to the right hon. Gentleman are a waste of time?

Mr. Godber: The hon. Gentleman must judge for himself whether his questions are a waste of time for him or anyone else. We are abiding by the common agricultural policy, exactly as the Labour Government said they would abide by it, but within that arrangement we have negotiated substantial assistance. I mentioned the contrast in the price of cheese from New Zealand, which was negotiated. The arrangements that we negotiated in Luxembourg last month are another indication of the way in which we are seeking to safeguard the position of the British consumer.

Pigs (Docking)

Miss Fookes: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take steps to ensure that the pig code of recommendations is not altered so as to permit the routine docking of pigs' tails.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: I am glad to assure my hon. Friend that we propose no such change in the Code of Recommendations for the Welfare of Pigs, which recommends that docking should not be carried out unless prescribed by a veterinary surgeon.

Miss Fookes: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, which is contrary to current rumours.

Butter Subsidies

Mr. Marten: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further discussions he has had with the EEC about subsidising the sales of butter in Great Britain.

Mr. Godber: I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement made on 7th May by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, when he announced the Government's decision to introduce the two subsidies on butter sales which are allowed by EEC regulations.—[Vol. 856. c. 56–68.]

Mr. Marten: Arising out of that reply and with reference to the l0p a 1b. per month obtainable on a voucher, what arrangements are the Government making to police voucher issues so that they are not traded in for cash or otherwise flogged to see that there is no cheating over this subsidy?

Mr. Godber: My hon. Friend has raised an important point which, among other matters, is being considered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services who will be responsible for administering the scheme. I shall draw my hon. Friend's comments to his attention.

Mr. Deakins: Why are the Govern-prepared to subsidise butter for old-age pensioners at a cost to the British taxpayer of £9 million, but not prepared to subsidise milk for school children from 7 to 11 who surely need it just as much?

Mr. Godber: I have tried to explain to the hon. Gentleman before why we agreed to these two subsidies on butter. The one to which he refers is not a £9 million cost but a £3 million cost for social butter. It is the general butter subsidy which costs £18 million, of which £9 million is borne by the Exchequer. The whole cost of social butter is being borne by the Communities on a totally different basis, and although we have repeatedly said that we do not think this is the way in which one should normally make arrangements for those in need on social security benefits, nevertheless, if a thing is offered by the Community and the Community is paying the full cost, it would be wrong for us not to receive it.

Hardwoods (Diseases)

Mr. Charles Morrison: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what continuing arrangements exist for the identification and monitoring of diseases of hardwoods.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: The identification and monitoring of diseases of hardwood trees are carried out by the Forestry Commission through its research and advisory services, and its contacts with universities and other research organisations.

Mr. Morrison: In addition to Dutch elm disease there have been reports of some new diseases among oak and chestnut. Has my hon. Friend seen those reports, is his Department looking into them, and what action does it consider to be necessary?

Mr. Stodart: My hon. Friend is no doubt referring to the possibility of oak wilt and chestnut blight. I can assure

him that there are important controls to prevent these, but we are examining plant health controls to see whether they need strengthening in the light of the coming into this country, so sadly, of the elm disease.

MR. IAN SMITH

Ql. Mr. Edward Lyons: asked the Prime Minister whether he will now seek to meet Mr. Ian Smith.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: asked the Prime Minister when he intends to meet Mr. Ian Smith.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): I have at present no plans to meet Mr. Smith.

Mr. Lyons: Is it not evident that the successful appeal of Peter Niesewand was the result of the magnificent spotlight turned on his case by the British Press, radio and television? Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this trial means that Peter Niesewand has now been taken from any further close-range reporting of the Rhodesian scene? Will he tell the Smith regime that interference with the Press and the continued detention of African leaders is not conducive to further negotiations with that regime?

The Prime Minister: We are very glad that Mr. Niesewand has been released but, as I told the House when this matter was first raised here, we have constantly made representations to Mr. Smith about other detainees and their release, but, unfortunately, so far these representations have not been effective.

Mr. Hastings: Will my right hon. Friend say something in this connection about the murder of two Canadian girl tourists by Zambian troops firing across the Rhodesian border, bearing in mind that Her Majesty's Government are responsible for what happens there? It may be a fiction, but that is the position. Would my right hon. Friend not also agree that this tragedy, like so many others in central Africa, is the direct result of power in the hands of totally unpredictable people? Will he ensure that the Foreign Secretary makes the strongest possible protest to the Zambian Government?

The Prime Minister: We were naturally distressed to hear about this loss of life, but as a Government we have no direct information about this matter. I understand that the Canadian and American missions in Lusaka are in touch with the Zambian authorities and the Zambian Government have undertaken to investigate the incident.

Mr. Davidson: Does the Prime Minister agree that what Mr. Smith appears to fear very much is the disapproval of the British Government and people? If, as Prime Minister, the right hon. Gentleman were to protest over the continued detention of hundreds of people who have had no access to the courts at all with the same passion as he and the media protested—and rightly protested—against the imprisonment of Mr. Peter Nieswand, might he not have brought about the same results for all those other people who have been detained for so long by a man who is in the classic tradition of the self-righteous tyrant.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman must accept the facts—which are that the present Government, like their predecessors, have constantly made representations to Mr. Smith about the release of detainees. I recently reminded the House that there was an arrangement in the agreement signed in Salisbury by the Foreign Secretary with Mr. Smith for a commission to examine the whole question of those detained. We have recently again asked Mr. Smith to give us the number of detainees, but we have not been given this information.

Mr. Haselhurst: Does my right hon. Friend consider that his time might be better spent talking with the leaders of other African countries with whom this country has a greater community of interest?

The Prime Minister: We keep in the very closest touch with the leaders of other African countries. Many members of the present Government have visited many parts of Africa and talked to their leaders. I have talked to them when they have been in London or at conferences in other parts of the world, and contact is very close.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Does the Prime Minister recognise that we all deplore

these quite unjustified shootings and welcome what the right hon. Gentleman has said, namely, that the Zambian Government are to institute full inquiries into this matter. Until those inquiries are complete, it would be wrong for anyone to start attributing blame for these shootings.
As for the detainees, although I am sure the right hon. Gentleman has done a great deal—as we did—to press for their release and for more information about them, is he aware that since Mr. Smith's last hope seems to be that he will at some time reach an accommodation with Her Majesty's Government which is acceptable to the people of Rhodesia, as we have always insisted, the right hon. Gentleman should be pressing the case of the detainees, irrespective of their colour, especially those who have been there such a long time?

The Prime Minister: We shall continue to press as the right hon. Gentleman asks, and to make representations. Again, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary has said many times, both in this House and in public, we believe that it is essential that there should be discussions between Mr. Smith and representatives of other races in Rhodesia in a further attempt to get a settlement. I am certain that if those discussions take place the question of the detainees is bound to be raised.

MONETARY REFORM (FOREIGN SECRETARY'S SPEECH)

Mr. Meacher: asked the Prime Minister if the public speech made by the Foreign Secretary in London on 2nd May to WEU committee members on monetary reform represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Meacher: When the Foreign Secretary said in that speech that international monetary reform was the world's first need, did not it show that the Government have already sold out this country's defences by virtually abandoning capital controls in the face of the multinational companies and international currency speculators? Is not that utterly


irresponsible, when the liquid assets of the multi-national companies today are more than twice the total of the entire world currency reserves?

The Prime Minister: Not for the first time, the hon. Gentleman's facts are wrong. We have not abandoned exchange control. We have undertaken our obligations to the Community, like the other members of it. But exchange control remains.

Mr. Tapsell: I strongly support the important initiatives which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has taken in this matter, but does he not agree that there is a growing view that the Committee of 20 is making very slow progress? Would not it be possible for a European committee to be set up to look into our domestic EEC problems?

The Prime Minister: I know that the feeling exists that the work of the Committee of 20, so far, has been slow. It is not for me to make any judgment about it. When a committee of this kind meets it has to do a great deal of groundwork before beginning to come to firm conclusions. We hope that at the next meeting of the Ministers concerned it will be possible to see greater progress. It is right that the Community should have a common position on monetary reform. It is in process of forming that.

PRESIDENT POMPIDOU

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Prime Minister if he will seek to discuss French nuclear tests with President Pompidou.

Mr. Molloy: asked the Prime Minister if he will seek to discuss the EEC Common Agricultural Policy with President Pompidou.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Prime Minister if he will itemise the subjects for discussion between President Pompidou and himself.

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his official talks with President Pompidou.

Mr. Adley: asked the Prime Minister if, when he meets President Pompidou, he will discuss the matter of Anglo-French consultation on the siting

of airports, in view of the agreement within the EEC on the importance of regional policy, and the effect which new airports in the two countries will have on such policy.

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Prime Minister what subjects he hopes to discuss in his forthcoming meeting with President Pompidou.

The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave on Tuesday 15th May to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Adley) and others.—[Vol. 856, c. 1235–8.]

Mrs. Short: When the Prime Minister was asked on Tuesday whether his refusal to discuss the matter of the nuclear tests with M. Pompidou was tied in at all with the report by Chapman Pincher that there were likely to be British nuclear tests in the near future, the right hon. Gentleman said that there were no immediate proposals to do so. Will he say how immediate is "immediate", in his vocabulary? Does it mean next month, in six months, or some time after the French tests? If the Prime Minister is willing to meet the protests of our kith and kin in Australia and New Zealand to the extent of changing proposed legislation on another matter, why is he not willing to do so on this important matter, where they protest against the contamination of their atmosphere?

The Prime Minister: I said that this Government, like others, are under an obligation to keep our nuclear weapons up to date. We shall ensure that that is done. I repeat that we have no immediate plans to carry out tests. If we have to carry out tests for the purpose that I have described, they will be carried out underground. This has been accepted under the partial test ban treaty that was negotiated by the Conservative Government in 1963. As for the Australian and New Zealand Governments, they have now instituted a case in the International Court.

Mr. Brian Harrison: In view of our direct responsibility for the peoples of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands, the British Solomon Islands Protectorate, and the Condominium of the New Hebrides which we have with the French, and our associations with Fiji, New Zealand, and Australia, will not my right hon. Friend


think again about publicly coming out and condemning these tests?

The Prime Minister: Because of our responsibilities to the dependencies we have always monitored the tests from Pitcairn Island. We have not found evidence that any have been damaging to those for whom we are responsible.

Mr. Molloy: Bearing in mind that recent public opinion polls have revealed that the major concern of ordinary British people is with the ever-increasing cost of living, which is causing grave frustration and annoyance, does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the common agricultural policy has added to this? Can he say what reforms he will put to President Pompidou in an endeavour to reduce our ever-increasing cost of living?

The Prime Minister: It was an important development when the Ministers of Agriculture agreed to the Commission's proposal that there should now be a complete review of the common agricultural policy. In working towards that, the British Minister—my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—played an influential part. I believe that we should now allow this review to take place.

Mr. Jeffrey Archer: My right hon. Friend will have read the Hudson Institute Report suggesting that the growth rate of the French over the next decade will be far greater than that of the British. Surely, yesterday's export figures prove that this may not be the case. Can my right hon. Friend say what percentage of those figures represented exports to EEC countries?

The Prime Minister: I never have accepted entirely the figures put forward in the Hudson Report, and I do not accept that the French GNP necessarily will be twice that of Britain in 1980. As for the figures for the distribution of the increase in exports, speaking from memory, exports to the Community over the past four months, since we became a member, have increased by 28 per cent. or 29 per cent. over a year before, compared with our average increase of 23 per cent.

Mr. Stonehouse: In the forthcoming talks, will the Prime Minister press for wholehearted and genuine support by

the French to Anglo-French aircraft projects like the Jaguar rather than pushing their own products, especially with Arab States, as they seem to be doing at present?

The Prime Minister: I have no reason to complain about the joint partnership carrying out the Jaguar project. It is quite natural that French manufacturers, like our own, press their own aircraft products as hard as possible in all the world's export markets. We do the same, and I should be disappointed if our manufacturers did not.

Mr. Dalyell: If the Prime Minister is so sure that his evidence is that there will be no damage, why not make an offer to President Pompidou to have the tests off Broadstairs?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that the facilities are available.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Does not this difficulty arise from the absence of a full exchange of information and co-operation in the Western Alliance? Therefore, whether it is within the context of the Community or that of the new Atlantic arrangements which have been adumbrated, is not the whole future of the nuclear defence of Western Europe a proper matter to be discussed with President Pompidou?

The Prime Minister: I have never said that it was not a proper matter for us to discuss. I said that President Pompidou had indicated that he did not think the time was ripe to discuss it.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Will the Prime Minister make it clear to President Pompidou that in no circumstances will Her Majesty's Government agree to the proposals which are being discussed in Brussels now on the initiative of Mr. Borschette, the Commissioner for Competition, which would have the effect of removing from large parts of Britain facilities for regional development created and carried out by successive Governments? Press reports this morning of what the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster appears to have said are very disturbing. Will the Prime Minister make it clear to President Pompidou that we shall have none of it?

The Prime Minister: I saw the report about what my right hon. Friend the


Chancellor of the Duchy was supposed to have said on this matter. There is no truth in it whatever. On the right hon. Gentleman's question about the peripheral areas, these matters are still under discussion and we do not visualise that Community rules will lessen the incentives that we can offer under the Industry Act.

Mr. Wilson: Mr. Borschette's proposals would greatly reduce the facilities both for intermediate areas and for some development areas, including the disappearance from the development area schedule of assistance for substantial parts of the country. With regard to what the Chancellor of the Duchy is supposed to have said—he may have been misreported—will the Prime Minister arrange for the Chancellor of the Duchy or, under the rules that we follow, someone other than the right hon. Gentleman, to report to us on what he said and how far he went on this occasion?

The Prime Minister: I understand that there is to be a statement next Wednesday.

Sir Gilbert Longden: On a slightly less important, but none the less quite important matter, will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity of making it clear to President Pompidou that we know our onions and intend to stick to them?

The Prime Minister: I will endeavour to carry out my hon. Friend's request, though I may not put it quite in that way.

Mr. Thorpe: Reverting to the proposed French nuclear tests, is the Prime Minister aware that those for whom we are responsible, who may contract leukaemia as a result of the fall-out from these tests, will not find the fact that Her Majesty's Government had monitored them a cause for cure, admiration or gratitude?

The Prime Minister: I should think that the right hon. Gentleman would have thought it right that we should find out what the facts are.

Mr. Dalyell: But the right hon. Gentleman said that he knew them.

The Prime Minister: If we monitor the tests with the best scientific equipment that we have and find that there is

nothing deleterious in them for those territories for which we are concerned, I do not see why the right hon. Gentleman should set out deliberately to misrepresent the position.

Mr. Michael Foot: Has not the right hon. Gentleman, when speaking about these tests previously, indicated to the House of Commons that he had the information that they would not cause any danger? How is it that he is now telling us that we will know the results only when they have been monitored?

The Prime Minister: I have always clearly stated—I believe it was the situation under the Labour Government—that when there were tests in other parts of the world we monitored them, and those have been our conclusions.

Mr. Hastings: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in view of the inability or refusal of the European Powers and our partners and allies to furnish the numbers of men necessary for our defence in Western Europe, the nuclear armoury becomes all the more important?

The Prime Minister: I accept that nuclear weapons are important and that the American nuclear deterrent is vital to the defence of Europe. At the same time, we have been working in the Euro-group to endeavour to persuade our partners in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation to make a more substantial contribution to remaining forces and weapons.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Harold Wilson: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. James Prior): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 21ST MAY—Private Members' motions until 7 p.m.
Second Reading of the Insurance Companies Bill [Lords].
TUESDAY 22ND MAY—Second Reading of the Pakistan Bill and of the Bangladesh Bill.
Remaining stages of the Bahamas Independence Bill.
WEDNESDAY 23RD MAY—Remaining stages of the Employment and Training Bill.
THURSDAY 24TH MAY—Second Reading of the Northern Ireland Constitution Bill.
Motions on the Northern Ireland orders relating to Road Traffic (Amendment) and on Salaries (Comptroller and Auditor General and Others).
FRIDAY 25TH MAY—It will be proposed that the House should rise for the Whitsun Adjournment until Monday 11th June.

Mr. Wilson: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that last week I asked about a debate on foreign affairs? Is he now in a position to say something about that question? Will he look again at the answers which he gave when I put to him the question of a statement about famine in Bangladesh, in India, and now also in West Africa? He undertook to bring that matter to the notice of his right hon. Friend and to see about a statement. We have not had one.
I also asked for a statement on the Price Commission's refusal to publish decisions except on what it regards as major cases. We have not had a statement on that matter. Will he look into it?
Finally, the Prime Minister said that there will be a statement next week by or about the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster's doings and what he actually said as opposed to what he appears to have been reported as having said. Could that statement also cover what the right hon. Gentleman was alleged to have said about monetary union and joining the Community float? Will whoever is to make the statement—I do not know whether it will be the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, but that would be the most convenient course for the House —cover both points?

Mr. Prior: The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will be making the statement. I think next Wednesday would be for the convenience of the House. Certainly my right hon. Friend will be covering the whole series of talks that have been taking place on behalf of both my right hon. Friend the Minister of

Agriculture and other right hon. and hon. Members who have been in Brussels. He will cover the whole area, including the point which the right hon. Gentleman has just raised.
Whatever some Press reports may have suggested, the Price Commission has made no announcement about its intentions on publication of information regarding approvals of price increases. However, I understand that the Commission is issuing Press releases about all applications for price increases which are approved, together with brief explanations of the reasons. I will gladly consider how best to disseminate this information to hon. Members.
Regarding the drought and famine in India, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has been in touch with the right hon. Lady the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) and has written to her. It is not thought that a statement at this moment would be of value to the House. However, if the House feels at this stage that more should be said—I do not think it would help matters if more were said—and wants to press me on the matter, I will again pursue with my right hon. Friend whether he should make a statement.

Mr. Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman said that it is not thought that a statement will be helpful. The passive mood does not say who does not think it will be helpful. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that whatever exchanges there have been between Government and Shadow spokesmen, there is great concern about the country that more needs to be done about it? There is a feeling—however correct it may be we could judge better from the statement—that many people would like to feel that more help was being channelled through the relief agencies, so it would be a good thing to clear this up. Will he therefore bring this matter to the notice of his right hon. Friend with the idea of a statement being made before the House adjourns?

Mr. Prior: I will certainly do that. I will ask my right hon. Friend whether he will make a statement. If he does not wish to make a statement at this stage, may I suggest that this is a matter that can be raised in the Adjournment debate which has to take place next week. I will certainly see what can be done. There


were good reasons for my right hon. Friend not wishing to make a statement.
I cannot go further than I went last week on the subject of a debate on foreign affairs. The first week or two after the recess will be very busy with business which we must get forward. I accept that there must be a foreign affairs debate as soon as it can be arranged.

Mr. Powell: Since the position of the EEC in the forthcoming GATT negotiations is to be decided by July, may I ask my right hon. Friend to see that a White Paper setting out the stance of the Government is placed before the House and that there is an early opportunity to debate it?

Mr. Prior: I do not think that a White Paper is likely to be arranged. As for a debate, this matter would be relevant to a foreign affairs debate. However, I will certainly bear in mind what my right hon. Friend said.

Mr. C. Pannell: Is the Leader of the House aware that I do not intend today to raise the matter of the status of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Lord Lambton)? Will he indicate when the House is likely to have a debate on the new parliamentary building? Bearing in mind that there appear to be considerable leaks in the Press about what should be the Government's attitude about the building, it seems only courteous that on a matter which concerns us so closely policy should be reserved for a statement in this House.

Mr. Prior: I wanted to hold a debate on this subject before Easter, but for one reason or another, particularly because the Services Committee wished to discuss and recommend to the House more evidence that became available—that evidence is now available—it was not possible. I recognise that the House will want an opportunity to make up its mind about the parliamentary building. It is for the House to reach a decision upon it. However, there is no chance of its being debated in the next week or two.

Mr. Edward Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the statement to be made by the Chancellor of the Duchy on Wednesday will deal specifically with a point which has been

raised time and again, namely, that in the event of the Government deciding to continue the regional employment premium, we may know whether the Common Market will allow us to do so?

Mr. Prior: I will certainly convey that point to my right hon. Friend so that he may deal with it on Wednesday.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Is that not exactly the point of the Borschette proposals, that if the Government were to propose this policy, the premium would have to be phased out in five years? Is he aware that we on this side of the House do not accept that?

Mr. Prior: I do not wish to go into policy, but the Government's policy on regional employment premium has always been separate from any decision which is likely to be reached as a result of any negotiations taking place in Brussels. My right hon. Friend can deal with this point next week.

Mr. Grimond: Will the Leader of the House consult the Secretary of State for Scotland with a view to providing the House with an opportunity to discuss the proposals concerning Lord Polwarth's new powers and the new Oil Council? Is he aware that it would obviously be desirable that we should have a debate? If that is not possible, will he bear in mind that, at the least, a statement should be made to the House so that the Secretary of State can be questioned upon it?

Mr. Prior: I will certainly consider what the right hon. Gentleman said. I have had an indication that it may be possible to raise this matter in the very near future.

Mr. Montgomery: In view of the absolutely unbelievable performance of the right hon. Member for Bristol, South East (Mr. Benn) in the debate on Rolls-Royce on Tuesday, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he could arrange a repeat to give hon. Members who missed that performance the chance to hear for themselves how pathetic was the Shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry?

Mr. Prior: The House always likes to be fair about these things. I do not think it would be the wish of the Government to kick a man when he is down.

Mr. Handing: Will the right hon. Gentleman say when we are to have the debate on the Whitsun Adjournment Motion? Will he further say when we shall have the opportunity to debate Motion No. 340 dealing with the logic of capitalism as opposed to one or two of its unpleasant or unacceptable aspects?

[That this House recognises that the activities of the firm of Lonrho are not so much the unpleasant and unacceptable face of capitalism, as the inevitable logic of capitalism; declares its belief that, if a Conservative ex-Cabinet Minister is worthy of his hire, then so is the hospital ancillary worker; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to introduce legislation to stop the use of the facilities of the Cayman Islands and other tax-havens for the purpose of tax-avoidance.]

Mr. Prior: I cannot say that we shall have that debate within the next week or two. It is not the usual practice to announce the day on which the Adjournment Motion will be taken. Certainly it will not be on the last day before the recess. I hope to arrange it fairly early in the week.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the eventual if belated arrival of the two computer terminals for the use of hon. Members, which are situated in a lofty eyrie overlooking another place, will have given much pleasure to the few hon. Members who know of their existence? When shall we have an early announcement about the terms and conditions of access to these terminals for hon. Members?

Mr. Prior: I am afraid that I cannot give my hon. Friend that information. I shall have to make some inquiries about this facet of technology which has now reached the Houses of Parliament. I will do so and communicate with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Harper: In view of the small amount of business for next week, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will find time for a debate on Circular 60/3 issued by the Department of the Environment and dealing with house building by the direct works departments of local authorities? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if Ministers from that Department were to listen to such

a debate they would see that this circular was and is a big mistake.

Mr. Prior: My right hon. and learned Friend will be answering Questions on this subject next Wednesday. It would be better to await his reply. I am afraid that I could not possibly find time for a debate on this subject next week.

Mr. McMaster: May I refer to next Thursday's business and bring my right hon. Friend's attention to the representations which have already been made to him about the Road Traffic (Amendment) Order? Is he aware that this is a substantial order, covering all road traffic in Northern Ireland? Will he reconsider his decision to place it in such a way that it follows such an important matter as the constitution Bill. Can he not rearrange business so that one or the other of these items could have more time allocated, as their magnitude deserves?

Mr. Prior: I am not trying to deny for one moment that these are important matters. I thought that it would be for the convenience of the House, and even for Northern Ireland Members, if we took all of this business in one day.

Mr. Stonehouse: Has the attention of the Leader of the House been drawn to Motion No. 315?
[That this House applauds the initiative taken by the Indian and Bangladesh Governments in proposing to Pakistan a formula for the improvement of relations in the sub-continent, namely the proposal to exchange the Biharis in Bangladesh, who have opted for Pakistani citizenship, and Pakistani prisoners of war now in India, for the Bangalees who are detained in Pakistan but who wish to return to Bangladesh; and urges Her Majesty's Government to use its good offices to assist in securing such an arrangement as a contribution to alleviating great human distress in the sub-continent.]
Is he aware that this deals with the alleviation of distress in India, Bangladesh and Pakistan by the exchange of prisoners? Does he intend to allow special time for a debate on this subject or can it be raised in the debate on Tuesday?

Mr. Prior: It is not for me to say whether it would be in order during the debate on Tuesday. The Government's


view on this is well known. We very much hope that the proposals in the recent joint declaration by the Governments of India and Bangladesh will result in real progress towards a settlement of the outstanding issues. We have welcomed the declaration as introducing a new element of flexibility into the situation. We also welcomed the reply by the Government of Pakistan in which it indicated its readiness to enter into discussions with the Indian Government.

Mr. Skeet: My right hon. Friend was good enough to say that there would be an opportunity to raise the question of the GATT negotiations in the foreign affairs debate. Does he not consider this entirely unsuitable, because this is a matter of economics. As it has to be decided in July, should we not debate it urgently? Or are the Government prepared to adopt the Commission's proposals and shall we be unable to express our views on such an important matter?

Mr. Prior: We shall certainly want an opportunity to debate it. There will be time to do so after Whitsun.

Mr. Lawson: May I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the Nature Conservancy Council Bill which has completed its Committee stage in another place? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a sensible amendment was made to that Bill by 126 votes to 47? Is he further aware that many hon. Members on both sides of the House would like to see the Bill receive a speedy passage through both Houses? Will he do something about it?

Mr. Prior: We shall have to wait and see in which form the Bill arrives from another place. I recognise that this is an important matter in which the hon. Gentleman has taken a great interest. I very much hope that it will be possible to find a suitable time for a debate to take place. I have a feeling that we hope that the Bill will go to a Second Reading Committee.

Mr. Biffen: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is only a modest consolation for us to know that the GATT negotiations can be discussed in a foreign affairs debate when what is needed is a definitive statement of Government policy? Cannot my right hon. Friend

rescue the House and himself from any embarrassment by taking over Early Day Motion No. 142 standing in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet)?
[That this House calls upon the Government to lay before it a statement of their views and proposals for the next round of tariff reductions in the Geneva Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, particularly with regard to the proposals of the United Slates of America, in order that the Government may ascertain the wishes of this House in advance of the adoption of any policy by the European Economic Community.]

Mr. Prior: I will certainly have a look at anything that can get me out of an embarrassing situation in the way my hon. Friend suggested. I do not think I can go further than I have gone.

Mr. Concannon: In view of the recent decisions taken on a free vote by this House, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to have a close look at Motion No. 331?
[That this House, in the light of recent decisions, now takes the view that the death penalty for Her Majesty's forces under the Armed Forces Act 1971 for misconduct in action, assisting the enemy, obstructing operations, etc., should be amended.]
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this relates to the death penalty for Her Majesty's Forces? May we have a debate about it, not next week but in the neat future, so that the House may discuss this anomalous situation involving Her Majesty's Forces in the light of the recent decisions which the House has reached?

Mr. Prior: We have spent quite a bit of time on this issue in the last few weeks. My note says that this point would have been in order in the debate last Monday. I cannot find any more time at the moment for debates on this subject.

Mr. Jeffrey Archer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that for nearly six months he has promised a statement on the allocation of rooms in Somerset House? Is he further aware that the Secretary of State for Education and Science said on Tuesday that this decision would be made very soon? May we please have it before the Whitsun Recess?

Mr. Prior: I will certainly consult my right hon. Friend and see whether a statement can be made before the Whitsun recess. If not, no doubt my hon. Friend will wish to raise the subject on the Adjournment.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider providing time for a debate on our roads policy in the countryside in view of the major issues coming up for decision? Has he seen Motion No. 282 standing in my name and that of other hon. Members which deals with this subject, concerning many of our constituents?

[That this House calls attention to the need for a special wads policy within National Parks and other areas of outstanding natural beauty sensibly balancing the critical environmental factors with essential local economic needs; and urges the Government to set up a Special Commission to examine proposals for major schemes in these areas and to make recommendations to the Secretary of State for the Environment.]

Mr. Prior: I appreciate that this is an important subject. I cannot promise any time for it immediately. Perhaps there will be opportunities after Whitsun.

Mr. Marten: Does my right hon. Friend recall Early Day Motion No. 243, standing in my name and the names of other hon. Members, opposing the draft directive of the EEC on driving licences?

[That this House rejects the proposals contained in a draft directive of the Commission of the European Communities (No. C. 119/1 dated 16th November 1972 in the Official Journal of the EC) namely, the Raising of the Age for a Driving Licence from 17 years to 18 years and other related matters.]

Does he recall that the original reason for not debating it was that copies of the draft directive were not available? They are now available. In order to relieve my right hon. Friend of saying that he cannot find time to debate the motion, I suggest that he looks at the business for Monday night after 10 p.m., following the Second Reading of the Insurance Companies Bill. No other Bill or business has yet been set down for that time, and it would be an excellent opportunity to debate the motion, which

I know my right hon. Friend wants to debate.

Mr. Prior: I recall all that my hon. Friend has said, but I do not think that Monday night would be suitable for such a debate because I already have some business to put in at that time. It is the motion for the presentation of a gift to the Legislative Assembly of the Kingdom of Tonga. That is one of the subjects that I am seeking to put in, but I did not want to take up the time of the House by announcing it in my business statement. I have already told my hon. Friend that we shall have to find time for a debate on the subject of his motion in due course, but I do not think that it is quite so urgent as when he first put the motion down. Since then, there have been developments rather favourable to his point of view.

Mr. Jay: May I refer back to the question of the famine in India? May we at least have a statement next week on whether the report in today's Financial Times is true—that skimmed milk produced in this country is being dumped in the sea because of high prices?

Mr. Prior: I do not think there will be opportunity for debate next week. I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that it is not unusual in the middle, or towards the end, of May for very small quantities of skimmed milk to be dumped owing to lack of capacity to deal with the glut at this time of the year.

Mr. Fowler: I remind my right hon. Friend that it is 12 months since the Criminal Law Revision Committee presented its report on evidence. Does he not agree that a debate on this subject is long overdue, particularly in view of the importance placed on it by some sections of the police? Even more important, does not my right hon. Friend accept that it is a long time since there has been a debate on crime policy generally and that it is not good enough that this very important issue should be left off the Floor of the House?

Mr. Prior: Yes, I agree. I think that we must find time for a debate on this important subject. I have promised in the past—indeed, before the Easter Adjournment—that the House will debate the matter in due course.

Mr. Michael Foot: If the Opposition were, as far as they were able, to guarantee that the right hon. Gentleman would get on the nod his Tonga motion— which he so happily discovered up his sleeve at the last moment—would he agree to accommodate the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) by having a debate on the driving licence motion on Monday night, so that we can be assured that the House is able to discuss the matter before it becomes the law of the land or before Her Majesty's Government take a definite view upon it?
If he will not have the debate on Monday, will the right hon. Gentleman at least give a guarantee that he will have it at an early date? The right hon. Gentleman said that we have business, when we come back after Whitsun, which might take us to July. But there has to be a decision, or an indication of the Government's view, on the policy of the Government about the EEC negotiations in GATT before July. Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore also guarantee a debate, and the possibility of a vote, on that subject at least before July if we cannot have it next week?

Mr. Prior: It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to say that he may be able to give a gaurantee about Monday's debate on the Tonga gift. I remind him that I put it down for debate this week, and because some hon. Members wanted to talk on it I withdrew it in order to meet the convenience of other hon. Members. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a guarantee about next Monday. I have already said several times in relation to the driving licence directive that the House will wish to be consulted and if necessary to make its views known before a final decision is reached. I repeat that guarantee to the hon. Gentleman now.
I will look at what the hon. Gentleman said about the question of a debate on Her Majesty's Government's stance on the GATT negotiations. I am not certain about the ground on which he was advocating a debate.

Mr. Cormack: May I revert to the question put by the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) about the new parliamentary building? He asked again for a definitive debate and vote on it. May we have such a debate as soon as we return from the recess?

Mr. Prior: Certainly not directly, but soon afterwards.

Mr. Faulds: In view of the likely mis-judgment as to the use of the rooms in Somerset House, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange to delay an announcement of the decision until a more proper decision is come to?

Mr. Prior: This shows the difficulties one gets into. I will consult my right hon. Friend the Secertary of State for Education and Science. We had better see how we get on next week on the Adjournment motion.

Mr. Laurance Reed: Is it not time for a full-scale debate on the Icelandic fisheries dispute? Some of us have the gravest misgivings about the wisdom of the present policy and we are by no means convinced that it conforms to the national interest. We would welcome the opportunity to analyse and appraise the situation.

Mr. Prior: There is no opportunity for a debate next week but if there is information which should be available to the House, I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will wish to make a statement.

Mr. McNamara: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that today the British trawler fleet left Icelandic waters? Can he therefore arrange for the Foreign Secretary to come to the House tomorrow or early next week to make a statement on the Government's policy following the trawler skippers' decision?

Mr. Prior: My right hon. Friend left for Hull immediately after his Questions today to meet the Action Committee there. If there is further information which should be made available to the House, I am sure that he will be prepared to make a statement. I will bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: We have now read or had the opportunity to read the Green Paper by the Home Secretary on replica and toy firearms. When does the Home Secretary intend to make a statement, to present a White Paper or to initiate legislation on this very important subject?

Mr. Prior: My right hon. Friend has indicated that he will need to introduce


legislation. I do not think that he has gone further than that. It seems to me that this important Green Paper will have to be followed by a statement of Government policy, which could probably tie in with the debate which has been suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Fowler). I hope that we can arrange that in the next few weeks.

Mr. Body: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the allegation that EEC funds are being defrauded of some £50 million? We do not know how much of this loss will be borne by the British taxpayer. Should we not have the opportunity to debate the matter, ascertain the truth, and look for safeguards against such fraud?

Mr. Prior: This matter has been raised by the Conservative Members attending the European Parliament, and with very good effect. No doubt the issue will come before the House in due course.

Mr. Peter Archer: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the Rehabilitation of Offenders Bill, which has passed through all its stages in another place? Since the Bill seeks to give effect to an all-party report by Justice, will the right hon. Gentleman consider giving the limited time necessary for this measure of simple humanity?

Mr. Prior: It is unlikely that we shall be able to find time for it this Session, but I shall bear in mind what the hon. and learned Gentleman said.

Mrs. Renée Short: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the Press reports in the last few days suggesting that, at the end of July, an agreement is likely to be signed in connection with the further development of the Channel Tunnel? As this controversial project is now expected to cost about £900 million, does not the right hon. Gentleman think it high time that it was debated in the House? Will he undertake that we shall have an opportunity to debate it as soon as possible after the recess?

Mr. Prior: Obviously this is a matter which will have to be debated in the House. My right hon. Friend is hoping

to give further information in a series of documents to the House over the next week or two. When those documents are available, together with the Green Paper which was published a few weeks ago, the House may then wish to have a debate, and I will do my best to arrange it.

Mr. Lipton: As soon as possible after the Whitsuntide Adjournment, may we have an early debate on the affairs of Lonrho Ltd.? There is widespread public interest in the serious issues involved, and the House ought to be given an opportunity of discussing them.

Mr. Prior: I can promise no time for such a debate, as I have already told hon. Gentlemen this afternoon, but there are various ways in which hon. Members can raise the subject and no doubt they will take advantage of it.

Mr. Tomney: May I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the obvious concern expressed in the House today at Question Time on the French nuclear test, and also refer him to a motion standing on the Order Paper in my name and in the name of well over 100 hon. Members, and ask him whether he cannot arrange for an early debate?

[That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to make clear in no uncertain manner to the Government of France their absolute opposition to the proposed nuclear tests in the Pacific Ocean.]

Mr. Prior: One does not sit here for very long without realising the feelings of people on this subject, but I cannot find time for a debate.

Mr. Kaufman: On a point of order. May I raise a point, with no acrimony, on something which has arisen specifically on business questions but which is a matter of greater relevance to hon. Members attempting to exercise their duties in scrutinising the actions of the executive, namely, the addition of motions without notice? I am not raising this point with any acrimony, but there are motions which suddenly appear on the Order Paper when one arrives in the House the existence of which one had not known before. It is difficult for an hon. Member to scrutinise them, and to prepare himself to speak with some responsibility.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that we can ventilate the subject now. If the hon. Gentleman will tell me what he has in mind, I will go into it.

BILL PRESENTED

GOVERNMENT TRADING FUNDS

Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, supported by Mr. Paul Channon, Mr. Ian Gilmour, Mr. Patrick Jenkin, Mr. John Nott and Mr. Kenneth Baker presented (under standing Order No. 91 (Procedure upon Bills whose main object is to create a charge upon the public revenue)) a Bill to enable certain services of the Crown to be financed by means of trading funds established in pursuance of orders made by the responsible Minister with Treasury concurrence; to make consequential provision (in the event of a trading fund being established for the Mint) as to sums received by, or due from, the Treasury in respect of the coinage; and to amend the Coinage Act 1971 in respect of the establishment and operations of the Mint: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed [Bill 143].

Orders of the Day — FAIR TRADING BILL

As amended (in Standing Committee), further considered.

Clause 15

EXCLUSION FROM SECTION 14 IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN SERVICES

4.5 p.m.

Mr, Alan Williams: I beg to move Amendment No. 27, in page 12, line 21, leave out Clause 15.

Mr. Speaker: Together with Amendment No. 27, we shall also take Government Amendments Nos. 28, 71 and 82, and Amendment No. 70, in Clause 104, page 77, line 41, leave out subsection (3).

Mr. Williams: Those hon. Members who took part in the Committee proceedings on this Bill will confirm that today we are not so much interested in the technicalities of the amendments on the Order Paper, important as they may be, because technicalities can always be altered in another place. What we want to debate today, and need to debate today, is the basic principle underlying these amendments. As anyone studying the Order Paper will see from the Government's amendments, compared with ours, we are diametrically opposed in our view on how the professions should be treated. May I say that this diametric opposition is not necessarily across the Chamber. It is the Government vis-à-vis many of their own Members, some of whom support the position which we, the Consumers Association and other consumer bodies take on this issue.
The debate arises today because the Government were defeated in Committee on the basic principle whether any group should be outside the scope of the Fair Trading Bill and whether any group should be less subject than others to the scrutiny proposed in the Bill.
In support of our position, that no group should be treated differently, may I call in support a very well-known authority whose view I am sure will be regarded on opposite benches as irrefutable, namely, the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Only


yesterday he said, in relation to the brewery debate,
It would not be right in this Bill to single out the brewers or any other sector of society for different and more rigorous treatment."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th May, 1973; Vol. 856, c. 1582.]
The Under-Secretary does not believe in discrimination. Therefore, the onus is on the Minister who will be replying to this debate, I presume—to prove the case for positive discrimination in favour of the professions.
Not only does he have to prove that case, and to establish the principle underlying it, but he also has to explain why it is that the list which was deleted in Committee—the list of professions which are to be excluded—has lengthened now that it has re-appeared on the Order Paper. That appears to be an act of contempt for those back-bench Members who spoke with great sincerity and feeling on this matter. Far from taking their opinion into account, the Minister has worsened the situation by adding another section to the schedule.
The purpose of our amendment—as opposed to that of the Government's amendments which is to review the position decided by the Committee—is aimed at consolidating the decision taken to remove the notorious Schedule 4. In doing this we are not—nor are the hon. Members on opposite benches who joined in our vote at Committee stage—anti-professions. We want to make that absolutely clear. We are no more-anti-profession in suggesting that the professions should be within this Bill than the Government would accept that they are anti-shopkeeper or anti-businessman in saying that the manufacturer and the distributor have to be within this Bill.
There is no question of being anti-anyone. It is a matter of ensuring that the Bill is comprehensive in its scope. This fact is well understood by the professions themselves.
May I here call in support the New Law Journal dated 26th April 1973. It says:
The loss of the Schedule will have sent many a dovecote in a flutter. It seems likely, if regrettable, that at the report stage of the Bill the Secretary of State will seek to restore the Schedule to the Bill thus once more providing all those listed services with immunity from the prying eye of the Director General.

That will be a great pity for there is no logical reason why the supply of services by the professions should not be dealt with in the same way as those of traders.
It goes on to ask:
 are we still insisting on that rather outmoded distinction whereby one body of wage, salary or fee-earners is welcomed at the legislative front-door with all due deference by the Monopolies Commission while the other is sent round the back door to be dealt with by the Restrictive Trade Practices Court".
The New Law Journal supports the premise which we argued, and which was supported by hon. Members opposite, that there should be parity of treatment.
The Ministers have put up a series of arguments. If I say that they are not convincing arguments, I do not mean that in any unpleasant sense towards the Ministers. They are certainly not convincing as far as I am concerned, and they were not convincing as far as the Committee was concerned because, other than the PPS—and one quite understands his position in this matter—only one back-bench Member on the Committee voted with the Government.
One of the arguments put forward by Ministers, of course, is that the proposals they are putting forward today—namely, that the professions should be favourably treated and excluded from the Bill— conform to the requirements of the Monopolies Commission report. We should look at that argument a little more closely. The Monopolies Commission stated in column 354 that it did not feel justified in advocating the setting up of yet another public body. But under the Bill, we are setting up yet another public body, namely, the Consumer Protection Advisory Committee. Therefore, what the Monopolies Commission said was in a different context. Another body is being set up and the Government must prove why that body cannot look at the professions on those rare occasions on which probably Ministers or the Director-General would feel it necessary to refer an issue to it.
If the Monopolies Commission is so sacrosanct, if its view is so important that it should be observed, despite the change in circumstances which is taking place, why was it that, in 1971, the Department of Trade and Industry, and the Minister in charge of the Department distributed a consultative document which was confidential and therefore not


seen by hon. Members, which included the professions within the scope of the proposed Bill? There has been no follow-up in two-and-a-half years on the Monopolies Commission recommendations about the professions, simply because the Department of Trade and Industry and the then Minister intended that the professions should be within the scope of this legislation.
Something has happened in the meantime. Why was the proposal dropped, and why did it take so many months for us to squeeze from Ministers the fact that the professions had been included in that consultative document? I suggest that it is the influence of the Lord Chancellor. I should like the Minister to tell us whether it went to Cabinet, perhaps last week. If not, we want to know why on earth it did not. We should like to feel that he is fighting for the consumer. But if it did, why did he lose?
Of course, we recognise that there are in-built problems for the Minister in such a situation. A third of the Cabinet are legally qualified, so the Lord Chancellor did not have to convince many people in order to overrule the Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs. Either the Minister himself has submitted to the professional lobby, or the Lord Chancellor has forced him to submit.
The second feature that we should bear in mind is that, on Second Reading and in our debate yesterday, in considering the question of pyramid selling, the Minister, absolutely correctly—I would not dissent from his view—stressed the need for flexibility in our approach to the problems of consumer protection. Yet, in relation to the professions, the Government are proposing absolute inflexibility.
Either the Minister can never conceive that, in all the years in which this legislation will be in operation, it will be necessary or appropriate to refer one of the professions or any of their practices to the Restrictive Trade Practices Court or the advisory committee, or alternatively the Lord Chancellor will not permit the actions of the professions and their practices to be referred. This is an inconceivable situation. We are legislating for years ahead, yet Ministers' and the Director General's hands are being

tied behind their backs in regard to a major sector of the economy.

4.15 p.m.

Dame Patricia Homsby-Smith: I should be happier if the hon. Member could give a little clarification about the professions to which he is referring, several of which are under disciplines which have been customary for a long time—such as the Law Society, the Inns of Court and the General Medical Council. Is he suggesting that a new set of disciplines should be imposed by the Bill to over-ride those time-honoured disciplines within the professions, or is he suggesting that the professions should be subject to a double lot of disciplines? The Bill is imposing the first-ever discipline on shopkeepers, but these professions have had disciplinary systems which shopkeepers have not had. It would help if he could tell us whether he expects the professions to have two disciplines.

Mr. William Hamilton: Read the debates.

Mr. Williams: I assume that, since she has made her speech now, the right hon. Lady will not catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I had thought that she intended to make an intervention. Surely she must appreciate that I am trying, so far as I can—I recognise the limitations— to evolve a logical case and to take up the points which have been raised by the Minister and by hon. Members on this side in Committee. The hon. Lady was not a member of that Committee, whose proceedings were lengthy, extending over 26 sittings. I know how difficult it is for an hon. Member, however diligent, to follow all the proceedings. Nevertheless, since she is so interested in this debate, she should have taken the trouble to read what we and some of her hon. Friends who are sitting near her said on this issue, rather than expect us to depart from the cases that we are trying to make in order to enlighten her. In any case, all she is doing is asking me to anticipate part of my speech which is yet to come.
As I said, the Government's case is that they can never consider that a major sector of the economy or any of its practices will ever need to be referred to the Restrictive Trade Practices Court or the advisory committee. Yet, as the right


hon. Lady will see from the amendment paper, 15 professions are listed in the schedule which the Government wish to impose upon the House against the wishes of this party and of many of their own back benchers.
Those professions will of course have many interests and practices in common, but they will have many practices which are individual. Paragraph 349 of the Monopolies Commission Report said:
 Restrictive trade practices extend widely in the professions, are often complex and are found in great variety.
Yet the Minister is saying that he cannot conceive that, between now and the turn of the century, a situation will emerge in which it would be more appropriate to refer such a practice, any one such practice of any one profession, to the court or the committee.
Surely the Commission is bound to be too heavy a weapon to use for every abuse which might arise within 15 professions. Either the Commission will find that its time is wastefully absorbed in minutiae when it should be working on other major issues, or, as is more likely, the lesser issues will be ignored, as they have been ignored over the years. That a problem is lesser in the total gamut of consumer abuses does not alter the fact that, to those people who are trapped by it, it is a major abuse. Nothing is more frustrating than to find that one has no outlet for one's protestations and no means of having one's complaints investigated.
It has been argued by the right hop. Member for Chislehurst (Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith) and it was said in Committee that the professions are self-disciplining. Yet, as I have said, we are legislating for 20 to 30 years ahead. If the Government's proposition carries the day, if the appropriate Minister, the Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs and the Lord Chancellor, all felt that a certain abuse should be looked at by the Restrictive Trade Practices Court or the advisory committee, they would not be able to refer it to either. This is utterly in contrast to the proposition put forward by the Under-Secretary, that we should have maximum flexibility. It has also to be borne in mind that the Director General will obviously be a man or woman of considerable standing and ability.
One also has to work on the proposition that Ministers, regardless of which Government are in office, try to be responsible in the way they carry out their functions. They will be aware of the existing disciplinary machinery. They will refer issues to the court or the advisory committee only where they see the existing machinery as being inadequate. No Minister or Director General will refer simply for the sake of referring. Indeed, in so far as the professions have their own disciplinary bodies, what do they have to fear? Why are they lobbying? What are they frightened of? What do they have to fear that other members of the community do not have to fear?
Let us look at the Press release issued last weekend by the Consumers' Association. It is headed "Keep the Professions within the Fair Trading Bill" and it says:
It would seriously weaken what promises to be a major piece of consumer protection legislation if many of those supplying important—and sometimes costly—services to the consumer were excluded from its provisions.
The traditional immunity given to the professions is now an anachronism … But they should not be exempt from public scrutiny. In terms of accountability they should be on precisely the same footing as trade and industry … If their standards are as high as they claim, they have nothing to fear.
This is the answer to the point raised by the right hon. Member for Chislehurst in her rather lengthy intervention. If the standards in the existing disciplinary machinery are as adequate as the professions themselves seem to think and as the right hon. Lady apparently would proclaim, what on earth do the professions have to fear from this piece of legislation, or indeed from the right hon. and learned Gentleman?
Furthermore, let us bear in mind that the police are self-disciplining. That does not alter the fact that the same Government who have argued that the professions must remain self-disciplining are saying that it is clearly unacceptable publicly for the police to go on making internal inquiries into alleged offences within the police force. Why, then, is it not wrong for the professions to investigate alleged abuses within their own private spheres because, as with the police, secretiveness or internal investigation leads only to public doubt and public suspicion that there is to be a whitewash, even where there is no whitewash?

Mr. Clinton Davis: Is not the process of investigation into police inquiries simply limited to the way in which the police carry out the inquiry not, in fact, going in detail into the nature of the complaint itself? Is that not the difference? It is a very limited process.

Mr. Williams: It may be limited but it is more than exists in this Bill for the professions. The hon. Member speaks as a member of one of the professions covered by the Bill and I shall be intrigued to see precisely what he has to say during the debate on this issue. I know where the consumer interest lies in these matters. I can also see where the professions' interest may lie. But my job at this Box is to represent the consumer, as is the hon. Gentleman's at that Box.

Sir Tatton Brinton: It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman is mixing two different subjects—the question of discipline, or dealing with misbehaviour by a professional body, and the question of trade practices, which surely is what this Bill is about.

Mr. Williams: Exactly, but surely the hon. Gentleman can see that their practices are not covered by this Bill. That is one of the points we are trying to establish, that trade practices are, and their practices are excluded.
I will quote here an article by Robert Millar in the Daily Express of 29th January of this year. I have said that public doubt and suspicion are bound to be aroused where inquiries are internal. He said at the end of that article:
 It is scandalous that any complaint against a solicitor must go to the Law Society's disciplinary body, where his own colleagues sit as judge and jury.
That isn't my concept of justice. And I'm sure it isn't yours.
I accept that the Law Society or any of the other disciplinary bodies will do the best it can. However, I will give some instances which give rise to certain doubts. Nevertheless, it is surely important, where so many people are involved, that justice should be seen to be done. That may be a cliché, but surely it is relevant here. It would be a mistake for hon. Members to underestimate the degree of public doubt about the objectivity and fairness of inquiries which take place under existing procedures. Let me

quote two instances. I gave several examples in Committee and every hon. Member could give examples. I accept the fact that these are individual cases and that there may be other cases in which people are perfectly happy with the situation.
After the Committee stage of the Bill I had a letter from a Mr. Broadley in Willerby, near Hull, in Yorkshire. He made a complaint to the Law Society alleging that fees charged to him were too high. Three months later he received from the Law Society a bald statement that he must pay, without any reasons being given. Within three days he received a demand from the solicitor concerned for payment within five days. The letter had been sent by second-class post so that one of the five days had already gone. The proceedings were to commence upon the fifth day and the five days also included a weekend. This does not seem to be the most considerate way of treating Mr. Broadley. He then complained to the Law Society, and to the day of his writing to me he had never even received a reply from the Law Society. Understandably, he has no confidence in the Law Society, and so he ends his letter:
 I have lost all faith in the legal profession and if I can help it I shall try to endeavour to do without them.
He at least tried to go through the existing machinery. I read the letter as it was written, and this indicates the difficulties people face, because when members of the public think of writing to the Law Society, they are often deterred from doing so because they are afraid that they will face a defamation charge. Most of them are not accustomed to writing letters observing all the niceties of the law, but the Law Society, as does the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, insists that the original letter, not a synopsis of the case, be sent to the solicitor against whom the complaint is made. Thus an ordinary member of the public almost needs to go to another solicitor to get him to write a letter to the Law Society making a complaint, in order to make sure that he will not face a defamation action. It is understandable that people are dissatisfied with the existing situation.
Another case concerns one of my own constituents, a Mr. Hollow. I referred


to this example in Committee, but even since then I have heard no further news in regard to it, Mr. Hollow was the successful party in an action by a landlord. Months later he had still not received a refund of his legal aid contribution. He wrote to me, and, as would any other hon. Member on either side of the House, I referred the letter to the Lord Chancellor. He replied on 10th April 1973 saying:
I understand that the reason why Mr. Hollow's contribution has not been returned is that his solicitors have not yet taxed their bill of costs. Although there seems to be no explanation from the solicitors for this quite extraordinary delay, the Law Society's Area Secretary has been pressing them to file their bill as soon as possible.
This may be a small sum of money to the solicitors concerned but it is a lot of money to the person deprived of it at the moment. It is not enough to say that the Law Society is pressing them after what the Lord Chancellor himself has described as a quite extraordinary delay in returning to a member of the public, one of their own clients, money that belongs to that client. I would add that I have heard nothing since from the Lord Chancellor on that case.

Mr. Ronald King Murray: My hon. Friend has made a charge which from the standpoint of the consumer is very serious, but he may be guilty of alarming ordinary citizens into thinking that they cannot write complaints about solicitors for fear of actions for defamation. Can my hon. Friend refer the House to a single case in which a legal practitioner has been successful in suing for defamation in these circumstances?

Mr. Williams: There was a case involving one of my own Front Bench colleagues a short while ago. I cannot remember the hon. Member's constituency. It was not my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray). It was another of my colleagues who was a Front Bench spokesman. He was successful but it was touch and go at one stage. It was a costly operation. A member of the public would be terrified by such a cost and could not afford the risk of bankruptcy if he lost the case.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Clinton Davies: That does not seem to deter thousands of people from writing to the Law Society and letters being sent to solicitors. Can my hon. Friend indicate one case in which a solicitor has successfully sued for damages for defamation in the circumstances which he has been describing? He cannot.

Mr. Williams: My hon. Friend is so complacent that he can utterly misunderstand the point which is being made, which is that the public are afraid of what will happen. If he doubts that, let him consult his hon. Friends. He is a member of a profession, convinced of its integrity. Others may not be convinced. However, my hon. Friend is free to make his speech and to declare his interest at the relevant time. I have been speaking for quite a time because of the interjections, and I want to complete my speech so that my hon. Friend can make his speech instead of a series of sniping interjections.
In 1968 the Secretary-General of the Law Society echoed feelings which certain solicitors seem to have in this House. He said then:
 I think you will find that every restrictive practice in our profession is in the public interest and not in our own selfish interest.
It is small wonder that the Monopolies Commission was compelled to comment as follows:
 Professional bodies are, on the whole, sincerely convinced of the desirability of their practices and some of their views on this subject appear to us to be based on an idealised view of their functions.
That seems a commendable understatement. If a trade union had a rule book such as the book by W. W. Bolton, B.A., the book of conduct and etiquette at the Bar, there would be considerable comment from hon. Members on the Government side of the House. I borrowed the book from the Library, with the injunction to return it in as good a condition as when I received it. Some relevant quotations are contained in the OFFICIAL REPORT of our Committee proceedings. Hon. Members may wish to refer to them. I am told that this is a very authoritative book and that it is normally expected that a barrister


would observe the advice given in it. It is stated on page 8 that:
It is contrary to etiquette for a barrister to carry through conveyancing matters by sending requisitions, examining documents and attending completions, whether for remuneration or not, which business is ordinarily done by a solicitor.
Here we have the classic demarcation dispute written into this rule book. It also states:
 It is the spirit and tradition of the Bar that Counsel is separately instructed and separately remunerated by fees for each piece of work done. It is not permissible for Counsel to undertake to represent any person, authority or corporation in all their court work for a fixed annual salary.
Surely, that is pure restrictive practice. There is a whole series of these matters where we are told that certain things are contrary to etiquette. Nowhere does it say what is necessary in the public interest. That is why we are so concerned that the professions should be allowed to control themselves and discipline themselves.
Concerning the advice given in the book, these rules are not in the public interest, and I should take much convincing that they are not in the profession's selfish interest. In Committee, Conservative hon. Members seemed to agree with me in that proposition. The Consumers Association seems to share that view.
I have indicated that the New Law Journal thinks that there should be closer scrutiny. Even the Minister, in a speech at the Consulting Engineers Lunch Club, said,
I am, however, in no doubt that the professional practices must be open to public scrutiny under completely objective conditions and without prior assumptions about the public interest.
The Minister is satisfied that they need scrutiny. To be fair to him, however, he went on to say that he felt that the Monopolies Commission was the correct body for that sort of scrutiny.
Our proposition is that the Minister has completely failed to show why it is only the Monopolies Commission and why a Minister should be debarred from the machinery which is being set up for all other groups in commercial activity.
On Monday I received a letter from the Law Society of Scotland. Other hon.

Members may have received such a letter. It starts by saying:
 The Law Societly of Scotland, which represents all solicitors in Scotland "—
This is how many people see these societies. It is not their fault. I am not pretending that this is a fair way; nevertheless they are seen as representing the professions. When this is taken in conjunction with the incredible statement of the Secretary-General of the Law Society in 1968 that all of his profession's restrictive practices were in the public interest, it can be understood why we want to see the professions fully covered by the Bill.
I accept that the various professional bodies try to exercise good discipline and try to ensure high standards. Nevertheless, the public have a right also to be convinced. No argument is put forward meaningfully as to why the professions should receive special exemptions. The point remaining to be answered is that which I have already mentioned, which is contained in the Consumers Association's Press hand-out:
If their standards are as high as they claim, they have nothing to fear.
The Minister must explain why that should not stand.

The Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): Although a number of hon. Members wish to take part in the debate, it may be convenient if I respond at this stage to some of the principal arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Alan Williams). He has spoken on Opposition Amendment No. 27, but grouped with this amendment are Government Amendments Nos. 28, 71 and 82, by which we seek to restore to the Bill Schedule 4, which was struck out in Committee. It is convenient that these matters should be discussed together. It is convenient also that we should have this opportunity for debating this important subject, because it is clear from what the hon. Gentleman said that the position in which the professions stand in relation to this legislation is a matter of considerable concern and interest, both inside and outside the House.
This subject arose for discussion in Committee on at least five occasions, and on the last occasion the Committee disagreed to the inclusion of Schedule 4. I have indicated the amendments which


we have tabled on this occasion. It will we apparent from the fact that they appear that we still consider that the view held—held in great sincerity by a number of my hon. Friends who served on the Committee—was misconceived. Therefore, I should like to put before the House the arguments, with which the hon. Gentleman dealt, which justify the approach for the Bill as originally produced and to invite the House to accept our amendment to restore that position and to reject the Opposition's amendment, which has the opposite effect.
The first point that I emphasise is that the Government have never contended that restrictive practices in the professions should enjoy statutory immunity from scrutiny. The phrase quoted by the right hon. Gentleman from the editorial in the New Law Journal—a paper which I used to read in my previous existence more assiduously than I do in my present existence, but for which I have a healthy respect nevertheless—was complaining that the professions would enjoy immunity from "the prying eye of the Director General". We are not contending for immunity for the professions; nor do the amendments which we are putting forward result in any immunity from "the prying eye" of the Director General.
If our amendment is accepted, the Director General will be in a position to initiate references of practices in the professions to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. There will certainly be no question of immunity from his prying eye—to use the hon. Gentleman's phrase.
Having said that, the only question that divides us is as to the machinery by reference to which the professions should be examined and scrutinised.
There has been a lot of misunderstanding about this. A number of people— not, perhaps, the hon. Member for Swansea, West—still believe that the Bill in its original form provided for a more stringent examination of restrictive labour practices than it did in respect of restrictive practices in the professions. That is simply not so.
The hon. Member has asserted that the professions are outside the Bill and he was asserting that no group should

be treated differently from any other. I draw his attention to the fact that Clause 78, which provides for the examination of restrictive labour practices, provides a special method of inquiry into them, a method which does not involve the making of orders, an inquiry only for the ascertainment of information.
However, the provisions of the monopolies legislation which has been in existence since 1965 have secured the position that the professions can be subject to an inquiry by the Monopolies Commission and that they can be subject to orders being made in respect of them thereafter. The professions, therefore, are certainly not outside the scope of the existing legislation and they are not intended to be taken outside the scope of any existing legislation by the Bill—on the contrary.
When we originally brought the Bill forward one of the questions we had to consider was whether we should leave the position as it was with the professions subject to scrutiny by the Monopolies Commission under the 1965 Act, or whether we should go further and equate professional and commercial services and make them all alike subject to the provisions of Part X of the Bill and bring them within the ambit of the Restrictive Trade Practices Acts. We gave that considerable thought.
The hon. Member for Swansea, West asked me whether the Government had changed their mind between the time of the first consultations when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was Secretary of State and when the Bill was introduced. There was consultation and consideration at that time and subsequently but it would have been meaningless if we had not been prepared, as we were, to modify the ideas originally put forward in the light of further consideration. At the end of that consultation we reached the position as it is now set out and I have no doubt that the policy for the professions reflected in the Bill as originally introduced is right.
The presumption that certain restrictive practices in the supply of goods were against the public interest was based on a number of reports of the Monopolies Commission between 1948 and 1956, which led to the 1956 legislation. There were some reports by the commission on


the supply of commercial services which have led to the same conclusion in respect of services as is put forward in the Bill. But the position on professional services is different because the commission has made only a general report on that.
The hon. Member for Swansea, West quoted that report, and it is worth reminding ourselves of the recommendations in that report of May 1970. The commission considered a variety of ways of dealing with restrictive practices in the professions. It concluded that certainly some of them deserved examination at the least, and that they were capable of operating against the public interest. It went on in paragraph 355,
After considering all the possibilities reviewed above, we have come to the conclusion that the best way both of maintaining momentum in what will inevitably be a lengthy process and of enabling more detailed guidance to be formulated would be … to refer in close succession to this Commission … the supply of a number of particular professional services where the practices are known to prevail. Such references should be for inquiry and report"—
then it gives statutory references—
so that detailed inquiry might be made into the practices of the relevant professions and, if any of the practices were found contrary to the public interest, the Government would have power to deal with them by Order.
It said that after a series of inquiries of that kind the time might come when general legislation should be possible.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Bruce Millan: That was three years ago. What has happened to the series of inquiries? We have heard nothing.

Sir G. Howe: The hon. Member must be patient. I am outlining the argument which underlies the framework of this legislation. As the commission pointed out, it would prove difficult to reformulate the "gateway" provisions in Section 21 of the 1956 Act in such a way as to enable practices operated by a professional body to be looked at by the strict standards which such legislation might require. It was for this reason that we favoured the approach which was blessed by the hon. Member for Swansea, West, namely a flexible approach with examination case by case by the Commission.

Mr. Peter Rost: Will my right hon. and learned

Friend explain why the stockbroking profession appears to be excluded from Schedule 4? Is it an oversight or is it intended that that profession should be the only one immune from this provision?

Sir G. Howe: I shall discuss the boundaries of Schedule 4 in a moment because I shall have something to say about that activity.
Having reached the conclusion that professional services should be outside the scope of Part X of the Bill, it was also necessary to consider how far they should be within Part II, which is the subject discussed by Amendment No. 27. One must remember that complaints in relation to the equivalent of consumer trade practices made against professions are the subject of other disciplinary codes and it appears to the Government that in both contexts it is right for the Monopolies Commission to be the agency which looks at these matters.
However, the argument is essentially one about institutions, and I agree entirely with the sentences quoted by the hon. Member for Swansea, West from the Consumers Association Press release:
The traditional immunity given to the professions is now an anachronism.
He did not quote the next two sentences:
We accept that, in the past, the professions have by self-regulation and imposition of professional standards, produced and maintained services for the public of a very high quality. In many cases, they still do.
Then comes the second sentence the hon. Member quoted:
But they should not be exempt from public scrutiny.
I accept that argument, but the argument is about institutions which are most appropriate. It would be wrong to accept the argument put forward by the hon. Member that the Cabinet or myself have been driven into some frozen posture of inactivity. On Second Reading I said that the provisions of the Bill did not imply
that the Government intend to remain inactive in relation to professional practices which may give rise to justifiable public concern."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th December 1972; Vol. 848, c. 466.]
Since then the House will be aware from the discussions we have had on the Bill that we have been giving careful consideration to the desirability of making


early references to the Monopolies Commission of certain restrictive practices in the professions. In doing that I have to take into account and meet criticisms and views received from the professional institutions—I think 130 of them—on our request that they should re-examine their practices in the light of the report of the Monopolies Commission to which I referred. The references that I now intend to make will enable the commission to carry out a series of detailed inquiries and to consider the bearing of the public interest on particular practices in particular professions and to make recommendations.
I need hardly add that it should by no means be assumed from the fact that references are being made that the commission's conclusions will necessarily be adverse. In selecting the instances that I am proposing to give to the House I have, of course, had regard to the economic significance of the different practices of the different professions and I have borne in mind the need to avoid imposing an undue burden of inquiry on any particular profession and at the same time to enable the commission to consider a variety of different practices.
With these factors in mind I am accordingly proposing to refer to the commission the practice of barristers and advocates in the United Kingdom known as the "two counsel" rule and the regulation of charges by scale fees on the part of architects and surveyors. I also propose to refer certain restrictions relating to advertising in relation to certain professions. The professions concerned are barristers, solicitors, accountants and veterinary surgeons. In the case of solicitors in the United Kingdom the references which I propose cannot be made until the Bill becomes law because the restrictions in relation to solicitors have a statutory basis in the Solicitors Acts which preclude them from being referred under the existing monopolies legislation. This Bill removes that bar.
In addition, it would be advantageous if the commission were also enabled to examine what might be described—I answer the point which was raised in the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South East (Mr. Rost)—as commercial rather than strictly professional services in the sense used

in the Bill. It is in that sense that I intend to refer restrictions on advertising by stockbrokers. That does not involve any conflict between the Monopolies Commission and the Restrictive Practices Court as the restrictive trade practices legislation does not extend to restrictions on advertising as regards the supply of goods, and will not be so extended when commercial services are brought within its scope. My Department will be discussing the precise formulation of the references with the organisations concerned.
I must emphasise that a reference to the Monopolies Commission in no way carries the presumption that the matters referred to are contrary to the public interest. Investigation by the Commission provides an opportunity for making an impartial and independent assessment. It is for that reason that the Government believe that it is the right machinery to use and believe it right to provide use to be made of it by restoring the schedule.

Mr. John Gorst: If the Bill were now in operation and the Director General were supported by his Consumer Protection Advisory Committee and references were made to that Committee, the point that my right hon. and learned Friend has just made, in emphasising that a reference does not presume some form of guilt, would be reinforced if a reference did not go through the whole panoply of the Monopolies Commission.

Sir G. Howe: I do not quite follow my hon. Friend's argument. It is a complex piece of reasoning which at this moment I do not understand. The Government think that the Monopolies Commission is the agency to which questions should be referred about the operation of professional monopolies of the kind referred to in the schedule. I have explained why in those circumstances the provisions of Clause 15 appear to be necessary.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Mr. R. C. Mitchell (Southampton, Itchen)  rose.

Sir G. Howe: May I be allowed to finish my sentence? I have already been interrupted once in the course of this sentence. Investigation by the commission provides an opportunity for an impartial and independent assessment.


The fact that a reference is made casts no reflection on the standards of competence and integrity with which the services are supplied.

Mr. Mitchell: Does the Minister agree that the terms of the reference are important? Will he give an undertaking that the terms of the reference will be as wide as possible? If the terms of reference were drawn too narrowly they could be restrictive and the reference would not get to the bottom of the things which worry many hon. Members.

Sir G. Howe: I agree that the terms of reference are important. On the other hand, the practices and the professions concerned must be identified by the terms of the reference. The scope of the whole inquiry must not be so wide as to make it impossible for the Monopolies Commission to initiate an inquiry. Those are the facts which I shall have in mind in stating the terms of the reference.

Mr. Millan: Will the Minister give an assurance—the Minister said it is for the Director General to make a reference to the Monopolies Commission—that the Government will not use the powers of direction which they have under Clause 13 to prevent the Director making a reference?

Sir G. Howe: I cannot give an assurance about every aspect of Clause 13. The principal purpose of the clause, as I understand it, is to indicate orders of priority for the substantial job to which the Director General must address himself. I hope that the announcement which I have just made will make it clear that the Government have no intention of shielding the professions from the appropriate form of inquiry by the appropriate body at the right time.
The hon. Member for Swansea, West raised a matter which has often been debated in this House—namely, complaints against solicitors. I have explained that professional practices remain outside the provisions for reference to the CPAC under Part II. Notwithstanding that, I shall comment on what the hon. Gentleman said about handling complaints against solicitors. As he knows, this matter has been the subject of debate on a number of occasions in both Houses in connection with the Bill and in connection with the

Solicitors (Amendment) Bill. The hon. Member and others, including myself, have taken part in some of those debates.
It is against that background that I am glad to inform the House that my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland propose to enter into discussions with the Law Societies to consider improvements in the arrangements for dealing with complaints against solicitors. That is a matter on which I have spoken on more than one occasion in this House in my previous existence. I have acknowledged that it is a matter which causes both Government and Opposition hon. Members some anxiety from time to time. On the other hand, the professional bodies concerned handle a large number of complaints to the satisfaction of those who are concerned.

Mr. William Hamilton: No.

Sir G. Howe: The hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) must not be too churlish by shaking his head in dissent. I am sure that most hon. Members will agree that such bodies handle many complaints thoroughly and to the satisfaction of those that make them. I acknowledge from my experience in this House and in my last office that there are matters and complaints on occasions which have caused hon. Members disquiet. I think that that is a fair balance of the argument. It is against that background that I make the announcement that my right hon. Friends are proposing to hold discussions with the Law Societies to consider improvements in the arrangements for dealing with these matters.

Mr. Alan Williams: Even if these improvements eventually come about, how will the right hon. and learned Gentleman deal with the problem that the public are doubtful about internal investigations by the professions upon their own members?

Sir G. Howe: That is one of the matters, no doubt, which will be considered in any discussions which take place. The hon. Member will recollect a report by Justice, which appeared approximately three years ago, which dealt with complaints against both parts of the legal profession. That report raised


the very question which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. It considered the extent to which the public should or should not be represented at any point in the investigatory machine. That is a question which arises in many other situations. The police are one example. There are many other professional institutions in relation to which the same question has been raised. I have no doubt that consideration or discussion of this matter will be undertaken in the light of the hon. Gentleman's point which is relevant.
I hope that the explanation which I have given of the reasons which prompted the Government to include the schedule in the Bill will persuade the House to accept its restoration. It is not part of any process of setting-up or maintaining immunity for the professions but is part of a considered judgment as to the right way in which practices, restrictive or otherwise, should be investigated on behalf of the community. It is against that background that I have made the proposals which I have announced.

Mr. William Hamilton: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has a great capacity for putting the House into the refrigerators, lowering the temperature, befuddling the issues with his legal jargon and promising all kinds of things despite the fact that all the arguments were paraded at great length on four or five occasions in Committee. Speaking for myself, I am just as dissatisfied now as I was at the beginning. Nothing that the right hon. and learned Gentleman said convinced me that the schedule should not be deleted.
5.0 p.m.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman went out of his way to stress that there was no preferential treatment for the professions and that the Director General will be able to make references to the Monopolies Commission in respect of them. One complaint made by the Opposition in Committee was that the Monopolies Commission in its report of three years ago criticised restrictive practices within the professions. Yet nothing has been announced until today. The Minister said today that certain restrictive practices within the legal profession —and to some extent in others—are to be looked at.
The impression remains that the ordinary man in the street is afraid of the legal profession. The profession has been extremely successful in cloaking itself in an expensive mystique. The man in the street will do anything rather than go to any member of the legal profession. Widespread abuses go unresolved because the public would rather put up with the treatment that is meted out to them than challenge the profession.
A constituent came to see me recently because he was dissatisfied with the treatment he was receiving from his solicitor. He asked me to find him another solicitor. I said to him, "In this profession dog does not eat dog. If a person is dissatisfied with one solicitor it is virtually impossible for him to get another solicitor to take up the case against the original solicitor."
The Members of the legal profession in the House are a freemasonry. They come together from both sides of the House to protect themselves. It is time they understood that the British public do not like them. They are extremely expensive people. My heart sinks when I receive a letter from a constituent saying that he is dissatisfied with the treatment he has received from a solicitor and asking me to refer the matter to the Law Society. The Law Society represents the solicitors—

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Peter Emery): I am sure that the hon. Gentleman never wishes to mislead the House. The secretary of the Law Society made it clear on the radio two weeks ago that if any person were dissatisfied with a solicitor or were unable to find a solicitor to act for him against his previous solicitor, the Law Society would provide that person with a list of solicitors who would act on his behalf.

Mr. Hamilton: The very fact that a representative of the Law Society has gone out of his way to say that shows that that sort of dissatisfaction has existed. Why would he make a public statement unless the disquiet already existed?
A constituent of mine who was selling one house and buying another had completed the transactions through her solicitors and was owed money by them. She bought carpets, furniture and all the


necessary equipment to furnish the house into which she was moving. In doing so she ran up considerable bills. She knew almost to the penny how much the solicitors owed her. When she asked her solicitors for the money, they told her that they would lend her some of her own money. She pressed the solicitors and got nowhere. She said to them, "Please let me have my money because I am in debt for furniture and carpets, and I do not like being in debt." The solicitors said that the money would be with her in a fortnight. She waited for a fortnight but it did not come.
My constituent then came to see me. I said that I would telephone her solicitors from the House. I did so and the next day the money was in the hands of my constituent. That sort of behaviour should not be tolerated.
However much the Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs says that this profession is not singled out for special treatment, it clearly is. That is the whole purpose of the schedule. It gives that profession special treatment that is not available to anyone else. Adding insult to injury, the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not justify the addition to the schedule that was turned down in Committee.
Paragraph 11 of the new schedule contained in Amendment No. 81 refers to the services of parliamentary agents. I make no great song and dance about it, but why were they excluded from the original schedule and why have they been put into this one? I notice in passing that paragraph 13 refers to persons employed as consultants in the field of
 mechanical, aeronautical, marine, electrical or electronic engineering".
Mining and quarrying consultants are also included in the schedule. Does the schedule also cover the consultants of Lonrho? One consultant of Lonrho is a Member of the House. If I write to the Minister and complain about the Lonrho consultatnts, will that matter be referred to the Monopolies Commission?
There has been widespread criticism of the way in which the Government have handled this matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Alan Williams) in Committee quoted from newspapers of widely differing quality and political bias. Both the Observer

and the Daily Express widely criticised the exclusion of the professions from the schedule. The Conservative members of the Committee, the epitome of party loyalty who would normally toe the party line, refused to do so in Committee. The hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) said:
It seems to me that if we are to outlaw, or at any rate investigate, restrictive trade practices, we must be consistent and do the same with the professions. I therefore believe that we should delete Schedule 4 in order to ensure parity of treatment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 12th April 1973; c. 1326.]
Parity of treatment is of the essence of the Bill. No one who is providing goods or services should receive preferential treatment in the protection of the consumer of those goods or services from restrictive practices.
The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) who is not here at the moment, then said:
I therefore believe that no profession should have any special privilege 
—which was really the same point. The hon. Lady the Member for Merton and Morden (Miss Fookes) roundly condemned the profession and the exceptional treatment given to them. In Committee she said:
It would have been far better to allow the professions to be considered by the two bodies as seemed appropriate and to amend the measure after several years if that proved to be necessary.
That was a reasonable point to make. The hon. Lady continued:
 It is important that justice is not only done, but is seen to be done. If we exclude the professions, as we do in Schedule 4, in the eyes of the public they will appear to be receiving favourable treatment. Indeed, they will be doing so. I must tell my hon. Friend that, although it will be disappointing to him, I shall not vote for one jot or tittle of the schedule." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 12th April, 1973, c. 1337.]
I hope that she has not been converted by the Minister's speech this afternoon.
The hon. Member for Merton and Morden also refered to abuses in the educational service—and we all know of those abuses—and to the people who give bogus degrees and bogus academic qualifications of all kinds.
Then we must consider the medical profession—and I am glad to see present


the hon. Lady—the anti-abortion lady— the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight). The Abortion Act has been abused to a great degree.

Mrs. Jill Knight: Just as I said it would be.

Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Lady greatly exaggerated the situation. I agree with her that the people who have abused the Abortion Act are no more than criminals who ought to be dealt with instead of being treated in the schedule as the next thing to God.

Mrs. Knight: I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that they are not in any way breaking the law as set out in the Abortion Act.

Mr. Hamilton: We shall see whether they have been breaking the law when the Lane Committee reports. In fact some of the clinics were closed by the Minister because he was not satisfied with the kind of facilities they were providing. Their code of conduct left a lot to be desired. Their clients should be able to have recourse to the Director General, to the Restrictive Practices Court, or to the machinery of this legislation instead of these people being allowed to get away with it by their being referred to the Monopolies Commission. To refer that kind of complaint to the Monopolies Commission, as the Minister suggests, is a nonsense. These are cases which may be regarded as trivial, but they are certainly not trivial to the person who is on the receiving end. We all know that the pace at which the Monopolies Commission moves is not exactly expeditious. It does its job thoroughly, but it takes a long time. The essence of consumer complaints is that they should be dealt with as speedily as possible, and what the Government propose will have the opposite effect.
5.15 p.m.
It is interesting to compare the justification made for the schedule by the Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs today with the arguments which were adduced by the junior Minister when we debated this matter in Committee. The junior Minister then talked about the professions being highly qualified and highly trained and he said that they set them-

selves a wonderful ethical standard. He said that the legal profession was in the nature of a complex monopoly. He suggested that these professions were distinguished by a high degree of skill and learning acquired after long and specialised courses of intellectual study and practical training. He said that they
maintain standards of ethical conduct beyond those required of the ordinary citizen by the law.
Do they? When one looks at the list in the schedule, I wonder who the Undersecretary of State thinks he is kidding. Does he think that the standards of conduct of architects, solicitors and even those in private nursing and in the medical profession are any higher than the standards adopted by skilled engineers or skilled miners? The junior Minister went on to say that those in the profession
accept personal responsibility to those whom they serve for their actions and to their profession for maintaining the competence and integrity of the occupation as a whole.
He went on a little later to say,
In particular, there is a special fiduciary relationship between the practitioners and their clients."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 12th April 1973; c. 1329–30.]
The hon. Gentleman read his brief twice on that matter, which almost amounts to tedious repetition.
I do not accept the argument of the junior Minister on that occasion, nor do I accept the argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Minister today. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) had a point when he said that the appropriate way to deal with professional malpractices might be to refer such matters to the Registrar of the Restrictive Practices Court. I think I am right in saying that the schedule excludes that possibility.
The argument that the professions listed in the schedule are above suspicion and that their restrictive practices are always in the public interest—which is what the Law Society said—was not accepted by the Monopolies Commission. Only now does the Minister announce that action is to be taken on the report of the Monopolies Commission published three years ago.
I shall not go on at length, but I have no doubt that other hon. Members can


give examples of abuses in other professions. I do not believe there is any reason why the professions should be treated as a race apart, as a kind of collective human equivalent of God himself. They must be subject to the same searchlight of public scrutiny as is the supplier of any other kind of goods or services. They have succeeded for far too long in prospering luxuriously in the miscreant aura with which they have surrounded themselves. It is time that was ended, and we can end it by deleting the schedule.

Mr. Daniel Awdry: The hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) said that the Minister had put the debate in a refrigerator. We all know that the hon. Gentleman is capable of generating intense heat on any subject with all the bitterness of which he is capable. It is a pity that today he chose yet another occasion to carry out a witch hunt in respect of a particular profession.
I declare an interest in this matter because I am a solicitor, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will admit that it gives me some right to say a few words on the subject.
The hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis), who is a solicitor, was shot down when he sought to make a perfectly reasonable intervention a little earlier this afternoon. It is unfortunate that this debate should have turned into this witch hunt against solicitors. We are simply discussing whether the professions should be referred to the Consumer Protection Advisory Committee or to the Monopolies Commission. For reasons which the Minister has given, he has decided that the professions should be referred to the Commission. That is sensible and reasonable and I certainly support it.
If we are to discuss the professions we should surely be discussing professional practice and codes this afternoon, and not alleged professional negligence or cases which ought to be referred to the professional disciplinary bodies. The hon. Member for Fife, West says that the ordinary public are afraid of lawyers. That is not my experience as a lawyer. The hon. Gentleman may say that I am prejudiced but I have spent my whole working life as a lawyer and I have also spent a few years as an MP. I do not believe that ordinary people are afraid of

lawyers. It may be that they will become more afraid if, when they listen to the ten o'clock news tonight or the seven o'clock news tomorrow, they learn that an hon. Member in the House of Commons made a bitter attack against the legal profession. No doubt the hon. Member is expecting headlines, which he will get. But the only effect of what he has said will be to undermine a profession which we all know does an important and responsible job.
Many constituents, if they have a grievance, rush to a solicitor and get help. I admit that there are individual cases in which complaints are justifiable. It is so easy in the House of Commons, with all the protection and privilege we have, to raise individual cases with all the bitterness which the hon. Member reserves for people whom he does not like. We can all do this. It is an easy game to play.
There certainly does seem to have been something wrong in the case which the hon. Gentleman quoted. The solicitor mentioned should not have taken so long to send the money which was due to the client but he would not benefit personally because he has to keep clients' money in a separate account. Perhaps the solicitor did not answer letters. We do not know, because the hon. Gentleman has not told us the other side of the case. I am sure that some hon. Members in this House do not always answer letters promptly or by return of post, but as soon as a complaint against a solicitor is raised by a Member of Parliament it gets great publicity.
It is important at the present time that there should be public confidence in the legal profession, and in the legal system, and I believe there is. The Law Society knows that there is anxiety about the method of dealing with disciplinary cases and complaints. I assure the House that the Law Society is well aware of it. I attended a number of talks in connection with the Solicitors (Amendment) Bill, but I do not intend to go on to this subject now as it is irrelevant to this debate. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Law Society is fully aware of the problem and of the disquiet which is sometimes expressed. Procedures will have to be changed, and I am delighted that my hon. Friend has stated that talks


to try to find methods to improve procedures are going to take place.
To use this debate as an occasion for a bitter attack on the whole of the solicitor's profession will gain the hon. Gentleman more publicity but will not serve the cause of justice.

Mr. Clinton Davis: I assure the House that there is nothing sinister in my speaking immediately after the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry). It is simply the luck of the draw. But it so happens that I agree with his remarks. I wish to declare my interest as a solicitor.

Mr. William Hamilton: Really.

Mr. Clinton Davis: I do not know why my hon. Friend thinks this so incredible. Unlike the hon. Member for Chippenham I shall be supporting the Opposition in the Lobby tonight and I will advise the House why I propose to take that course. My hon. Friends the Members for Swansea, West (Mr. Alan Williams) and Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) almost drove me in to the other Lobby with some of the spurious arguments which they have advanced. I do not intend to personally attack my hon. Friend because he and I have been reasonably good friends ever since I came into the House. He was one of my tutors in helping me to formulate parliamentary Questions. Now I wonder whether because some of those Questions went wrong I should refer my hon. Friend to the Director General of Fair Trading.
I am concerned about some of the arguments which have been adduced. They have been so selective and so unjust and do not advance the cause which they purport to support. My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West said that solicitors who are Members of the House are like a band of freemasons and that they get together in order to support their interests regardless of the consumers' interests. That is a lot of poppycock. We have our differences here as well as differences about how the profession should be run. But we have a common interest in that we are members of one profession, in the same way as trade unionists have a common interest. There are a number of groups in this House who have common interests. If we are dissatisfied with cer-

tain aspects of the profession, it is right that we should air them by discussing them between ourselves.
My hon. Friend said that there is no group in this House more disliked than the legal profession. That is an opinion which he is entitled to hold. But I notice no reticence on the part of our lay colleagues about coming to us for advice when they desire it. There is no reticence about seeking our assistance when they feel that civil liberties are involved and they want expert advice. Very well. We are disliked and detested, and I suppose that to be a lawyer-politician could not be worse in the opinion of certain members of the public.
Essentially the situation is that some lawyers, like some doctors and some dentists, do not do their work properly and deserve rebuke. They get it. They get it from their professional body. In the case of a lawyer, the Law Society is a pretty hard taskmaster, as is the Bar Council. I do not believe that my hon. Friends have addressed their minds at all to the measure of the discipline imposed by these bodies. What is at stake here is not simply a case which is referred to the professional body. It is a man's future. It is his ability to support his family in the future which is in issue. Therefore it is a matter not to be approached in the rather lighthearted way that my hon. Friends have done in this debate.
I believe that most professional men do their best. Some may not succeed in advancing the interests of their clients or patients as one might wish. But that is because human beings are fallible. In the same way, professional men are fallible. That does not mean that because of that fallibility they should always be disciplined. That does not necessarily follow.
As I expected, this debate has been used as an exercise for attacking primarily the legal profession. A number of allegations have been made which I should like to mention. It was said first of all that, in its disciplinary activities, this profession, like others, has its members acting as judges in their own cause. But while that is true, they are pretty effective judges. It is right to say, as the hon. Member for Chippenham did just now, that the Law Society is not indifferent to


the fact that Members of Parliament and others have said that the way its inquiries are carried out is imperfect. In view of that the Law Society has reviewed the way in which it carries out its inquiries. It has a lay person investigating every case where it is suggested that there is no case for a disciplinary inquiry. That lay person indicates whether he believes that the processes which have been carried out are right and the decision is correct.

Mr. Alan Williams: If the internal support for change is so satisfactory, why has the right hon. and learned Gentleman had to announce that the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Scotland are to have talks with the Law Society on this very issue?

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Davis: Nothing is perfect. The Law Society would not have intervened to alter its own procedures if all had been perfect. I do not suggest that for a moment. All that I assert is that in his overzealousness to put forward the propositions that he has today my hon. Friend has misrepresented the situation to a very large degree. Although I come to the same conclusion eventually as my hon. Friend does, it is right that I should seize this opportunity to rebut some of his allegations.
My hon. Friend dismissed the assertion that I made in my intervention during his speech that the way in which objections into the way in which the police carry out their investigations in the future is by means not of a full-scale inquiry into the complaint itself but merely by scrutinising whether the way in which the investigation has taken place is correct. That is different from what my hon. Friend asserted.
Then my hon. Friend said about discipline that he did not think that the Law Society and, presumably, the Bar Council were sufficiently assiduous in their duties. I do not know of any other group or organisation, outside this profession, which carries out such detailed and searching inquiries as the Law Society and the Bar Council when allegations are made against solicitors and barristers.
My hon. Friend's next argument was about costs. Many people have talked about solicitors' costs. It may be that

sometimes they are high. But often people say, when a solicitor has carried on some small litigation, that his reward is very inadequate. However that is another point.
What other group of people provide the consumer, the client, with the same protection as that afforded to the public when it comes to matters concerning solicitors' bills? Bills relating to contentious matters are taxed by the court. In a non-contentious matter, before a solicitor can sue a client he must give 28 days' notice after delivery of the bill and must advise the client before instituting proceedings that he can obtain a certificate as to the fairness of the bill from the Law Society or that he requires the bill to be taxed. There is no other comparable procedure in any other profession or trade. But my hon. Friend does not refer to that because it does not suit his argument.
My hon. Friend's point about defamation was a complete red herring. I have never known people to be frightened off, as he suggests, in making complaints to the Law Society. The Law Society would not be nearly so burdened with correspondence if that were the case. It receives a very substantial number of letters. Some of the complaints are justified. Many are not. My hon. Friend's argument is an absurd proposition. People are not frightened to complain to the Law Society. I concede that many people are afraid of consulting a solicitor, especially in working class areas—

Mr. Ronald Brown: Hear, hear.

Mr. Davis: They think that solicitors are middle-class people and that somehow they are a totally different form of animal—

Mr. Brown: Hear, hear.

Mr. Davis: That is the second time that my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Ronald Brown) has said, "Hear, hear". But from time to time my hon. Friend refers cases to me and they do not seem to be terrified. People now have the assistance of the £25 scheme, and it is hoped that vast numbers will seek advice because of the benefits of that scheme. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West cannot argue that people are afraid to


make complaints about solicitors because of the law of defamation.

Mr. Ronald Brown: But my hon. Friend will agree that there is a problem here. I do not suggest that he is not making a cogent argument against what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Alan Williams). However there are occasions when my hon. Friend and I have to discuss matters where people have been to solicitors and feel that they have grievances against those solicitors. It is extremely difficult for me to assess the quality of the advice given to one of my constituents by a solicitor. How can a constituent get that assessment if he cannot go to his Member of Parliament for it?

Mr. Davis: He can go to another solicitor. How can one assess the value of a doctor's advice? Sometimes it is difficult. Sometimes it is even lethal.
Still on this issue of defamation, my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West did not reply to the cogent point put to him by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray). He asked that he should cite any single case in which a person had been condemned in damages in circumstances such as these. He could not. It is another bare assertion without any foundation in fact.
My hon. Friend went on to argue about delay. This is often a subject of complaint. I do not deny it. I do not think that any hon. Member can deny that sometimes, particularly when he is overwhelmed with work—and even when he is not overwhelmed with work—he has been guilty of delay in answering correspondence or dealing with matters. One does not wilfully do it, but one gets overloaded with work from time to time and delay is inevitable. Sometimes members of staff are away. Some of these things are explicable; others are not. To make the general allegation that the whole profession is guilty of monstrous delay, and so on, does not do justice to the argument.
The argument about a fused profession, which we heard in Committee and has been mentioned generally today, is worthy of consideration. There are arguments for and against it in the public interest. Strong views are held on both sides of

the profession. I personally do not believe in a fused system, but a separated profession is not an unfair or unworthy restrictive practice. I have yet to be convinced that the system in the United States, France, or elsewhere, where there is a fused system, is better and less expensive than in this country. Indeed, the reverse is the case.
I believe there is a strong argument for the idea that, to avoid delay, about which so many allegations are made— sometimes baselessly—we should have more, not less, specialisation in the profession. The law is becoming more complex—this is primarly our fault in this place—and lawyers have to try to administer it, so they need a substantial measure of specialisation to do so.
I turn now to some of the specific examples that have been mentioned. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West referred in Committee at column 1323 to the case of Mrs. Treseder. I concede that that was a sad and unfortunate case of somebody who had been advised by a solicitor that she had no interest under a will, and the solicitor refusing to allow her sight of it, and in the event he was quite wrong. He subsequently apologised and said that he was wrong. He admitted his error. The Law Society, in effect, said, "What more can we do? The man was wrong and he has conceded this". If there had been evidence that he had taken this action with spurious motives, that would be a different matter. But what more could my hon. Friend have wanted from that situation? Has he never made a mistake?
My hon. Friend referred to costs, but did not reveal the whole of the facts. Was the client to whom he referred advised of his rights before he was sued? If not, the action brought by the solicitor would be misconceived and he would not be able to pursue his claim.
This canard, which was constantly introduced in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West, about it being difficult to find a solicitor to assist somebody in making a claim for negligence against another solicitor, is not my experience. My hon. Friend said that dog does not eat dog. I assure him that my experience is not the same


as his. I am sure that other hon. Members who are solicitors have, as I have, taken up the cudgels on behalf of a client against other solicitors. It happens all the time. The Law Society has said that it will assist anybody who is placed in this difficulty.

Mr. William Hamilton: Mr. William Hamilton indicated dissent.

Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend shakes his head. Does he deny it?

Mr. Hamilton: I am merely indicating that my experience is the opposite.

Mr. Davis: Any experience that my hon. Friend sustains in future which is the opposite of that can now be remedied. He has been informed of his remedy.
Not a word has been said about the compensation fund which is available. We in this House have been trying to get the compensation fund increased, but we have been baulked by some hon. Members who are anxious to prevent the Solicitors (Amendment) Bill going through. Where else do we find similar protection for the public? Does this suggest that the Law Society is completely unaware of the public interest in that regard? It is amazing how much the profession can be castigated in this way and thereby an injustice is done to the profession which is seeking to serve the public. I am not suggesting that everything is right, but these baseless assertions should be repudiated.
Lawyers are frequently in the forefront of the battle against any abuse of civil liberties. They are entiled to be proud of this. The young men and women coming into the profession are quite different from those who came in in the past, and they should be supported. Speeches such as some we have heard today could deter young, dedicated, socially aware and spirited people who are anxious to do right from coming into this important profession. I hope that this kind of argument will not be permitted to go on.
I support the Opposition on this matter. I believe that all professions should be dealt with in the same way as other people. I see no case for exclusion. I am particularly sorry that it is proposed by the Government that "the services of ministers of religion in their capacity as such ministers" is to be excluded. There

could have been an enormous amount of hilarity and fun if they had been included, and if the Opposition has its way, they may still be included. For example, if a marriage goes wrong, someone might be able to go to the Director of Fair Trading and say, "He—a minister of religion —celebrated the marriage for me, and he is responsible for everything." I think that society needs to be more light hearted, and this would contribute to it.
I do not wish to appear complacent about this matter. That is not my intention. I believe that the professions should be dealt with fairly and they have not been dealt with fairly in some of the arguments addressed in the debate thus far.

Sir T. Brinton: We have spent the last hour discussing matters which are completely irrelevant to the substance of these proposals. I suppose it was to be foreseen, when the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) let loose one of his more bitter tirades against the legal profession, that that should be followed by a couple of lawyers defending their profession. It might be more appropriate if a layman defended us and stuck to what we are talking about.
We are not talking about any method contained in the Bill, whether we adopt the reference to the advisory committee or to the Monopolies Commission, dealing with complaints against individual professional men. This will not be a kind of complaints office. Either of these methods of reference must be handled in such a way that, whether we are dealing with trade or professional practices, they are widely applied. It does not matter whether we adopt the Opposition's or the Minister's proposals because in either case we shall not have a kind of complaints office. Yet that is all we have been talking about for the last hour.
I want to return to what we should be talking about. I supported in Committee and again support the Minister's view that the Monopolies Commission is the appropriate body to which to refer the professions. I shall not speak any further on this point, because I wish to raise a specific issue with the Minister.
I understand that there is an omission from the list of professions that the Minister has proposed. I have received a letter from the British Hearing Aid


Industry Association and the Society of Hearing Aid Audiologists Committee raising this matter and I ask the Minister to consider it without any recommendation from me because I know nothing about it.
In its letter the Committee says:
This committee speaks for all hearing-aid dispensers and employers of dispensers in this country. As you know, both of these categories of persons are required to be registered with the Hearing Aid Council (under the terms of the Hearing Aid Council Act 1968); and the activities of the profession of hearing-aid dispensing, both as regards standard of competence and code of practice, are regulated by the Hearing Aid Council.
5.45 p.m.
It is claiming that it is a profession comparable to 15 different professions cited in the new Schedule. It further makes the point in establishing its claim to be regarded as a profession, that during the discussion of the Finance Bill—I assume it means last year—the Chancellor of the Exchequer moved an amendment which resulted in hearing-aid dispensers being included in Schedule 5, Group 7. This means that its services, along with those of medical practitioners, dentists, nurses and opticians are exempt from VAT. On that basis it claims that it is a body of professional people.
I do not know whether it might be considered to fall under paragraph 2— "Medical Services"—or even conceivably under paragraph 13 where we talk about professional engineers or technologists. There is something in its claim that its services must be similar to those of many other medical services and advisers. I ask that the Minister should consider whether its claim to be included in the Schedule is fair.

Miss Janet Fookes: As my right hon. and learned Friend knows, I was one of the culprits who voted against the Government to exclude the schedule which the Government are largely seeking to reinstate today.
I listened with great interest to my right hon. and learned Friend. It was made clear in Committee by his hon. Friend that it was intended that the professions should be looked at where necessary by the Monopolies Commission. I felt, and continue to feel, that it would be more

appropriate for them to be considered by the Consumer Protection Advisory Committee. I felt that my right hon. and learned Friend dwelt too much on the fact that it was the right course—that they should go to the Monopolies Commission —but that he was rather short on reasons as to why it was a good course.
The original form of the Bill rather intended that the professions should be an exception. There was no clause which excluded them but there was no clause specifically including them and setting out the method by which they were to be dealt with. I recognise that there were the general umbrella clauses but nowhere did they seem to be specifically mentioned, except by way of an exception.
There are professions other than the legal profession. Indeed the list is extremely long. I should like to refer briefly to accounting services. I had a case recently when I became somewhat concerned about a practice which seems to be typical of accountancy and which is not being dealt with very well. I had occasion to write to an accountant drawing his attention to a difficulty, which a relative had brought to me. She had received no answer from this person.
I, too, had the greatest difficulty getting any answer from the said accountant. When I did, the letter was extraordinarily abusive. I felt that it should be sent to his professional body. When I told the accountant of my intention, he wrote back and said, "I know the secretary of this professional body and have known him for many years. I am quite sure that he will treat your complaint with the contempt it deserves." This did not seem very encouraging. That letter came at the time when we were discussing the immunity of the professions from inspection by the advisory committee.
I am still waiting for the matter to be resolved. I feel that there are other professions where there are such difficulties. I mentioned one in Committee and it was mentioned again today by the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton)—that of the bogus educational institutions. I am not sure whether the Monopolies Commission is the right body to deal with this. I wonder whether it will be over-burdened if it has to deal with its traditional work and with what I regard as this rather newer work.
I was encouraged by the concession which my right hon and learned Friend made this afternoon inasmuch as he has announced specific practices which are to go to the Monopolies Commission. I hope he will not take it amiss if I say that I feel that had we not made such a fuss previously this concession might not have been announced. Whatever the fate of this amendment a great deal of good will have been done.
I remain convinced that the Consumer Protection Advisory Committee is the right body to do this job, if only—and this is an important reason—so that those people outside can see that all trade and professional practices are dealt with in precisely the same way. This I believe to be an important principle and I propose to stick by it.

Mrs. Knight: I wish to speak in support of Amendment No. 82. Before doing so I feel I must refer to the speech of the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) whom I am assured by one or two of my colleagues is really a very nice man once he is outside the Chamber. He is a parliamentary Doctor Jekyll and Mr. Hyde—a Hyde in the Chamber and no doubt a Jekyll in the Members' Dining Room. Alas, I have never had occasion to speak to him there. [Laughter.] The House will know the point that I am making, because it is well used to the hon. Member's speeches and knows just how Jekyll-like or Hyde-like they are. I must tell the hon. Member that I would prefer to be known as "the Anti-Abortion Act Member" than as "the Anti-Royal Family Member".

Mr. William Hamilton: It is a matter of choice.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think we are wandering a little.

Mrs. Knight: I accept your rebuke, Mr. Speaker. I was merely answering a point raised in your absence by the hon. Member. I hasten to return to the amendment. A professional body wrote to me suggesting that I should move an amendment to my right hon. and learned Friend's amendment. This body was obviously unversed in the tortuous paths of procedure which our Erskine May-regulated feet must tread.
The proposed amendment suggested to me as being desirable by the Optical Association was to do with the words dealing with paragraph 4 in the proposed new Schedule "Ophthalmic services". It was suggested that the paragraph should read:
Ophthalmic services (that is to say, the testing of sight) and the supply of optical appliances within the meaning of the Opticians Act 1958.
I looked up the Opticians Act 1958 and discovered that Clause 30 reads:
'optical appliance' means an appliance designed to correct, remedy or relieve a defect of sight.
What these people were asking was that we should consider including spectacles or the provision of lenses in the same way as certain items relating to dentistry are covered in the Schedule where it says:
any services falling within the practice of dentistry".
I understand that also to mean the provision of such things as false teeth. I was not able to table that amendment because I feel that we are moving into the commercial sphere here. There is an important point which I would ask my right hon. and learned Friend to consider.
It is true that Dorothy Parker once said, "Men seldom make passes at girls who wear glasses." Nowadays glasses are so attractive that passes are made to people who wear them, whether male or female. I see that the hon. Member for Fife, West has removed his glasses. I feel that the House is not aware that successive Governments have connived at bringing about a situation whereby patients who pay for frames are actually subsidising the whole ophthalmic service.
I am told that many ophthalmic opticians would go out of business entirely were it not for the fact that successive Governments have recognised that the only thing which keeps them afloat financially is their ability to sell frames on a commercial basis. This is something about which we could have a long argument on another occassion. I beg my right hon. and learned Friend to ensure that the consumer interest is safeguarded here.
If we do not recognise that the provision of lenses is a part of the service provided by ophthalmic opticians we may find ourselves in a little difficulty later on. Ophthalmic opticians have a long


training of four years and two extra years if they wish to prescribe contact lenses. The items they supply are just as important as those supplied by dentists. My right hon. and learned Friend should know that in many instances lenses are provided not purely for cosmetic or beautifying reasons but because they are needed. I am thinking particularly of the contact lens for someone who has a defect in one eye only and who wears one contact lens instead of a pair of spectacles. The principle is felt to be important by the body which represents the opticians, and I would ask my right hon. Friend to consider it.

Mr. Gorst: I have no desire to enter into a discussion about the merits or demerits of the professions. This country enjoys professions which have a deservedly high reputation. No absolute perfec tion is possible in human organisations. It inevitably follows that there must be machinery to rectify abuses which are against the public interest. I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend when he says that this group of amendments is about the machinery and not really about the professions.
The question is whether the restrictive practices by the professions should go straight to the Monopolies Commission or to the Consumer Protection Advisory Committee if, at his discretion, the Director General of Fair Trading thinks that would be more appropriate. Behind any argument about this machinery there are certain important matters of principle.
Are the services rendered by one class of people, the professions, to be privileged and protected while another class of occupations, for instance, stockbrokers, advertising agents, airline pilots or computer programmers is to be scrutinised and judged by the Director General, the CPAC, the Restrictive Practices Court and the whole panoply of the Monopolies Commission?
If the answer is "Yes, they must be treated separately" then I wonder why a number of such people do not band themselves together as groups of workers rather than professions. The airline pilots have done this and gained the protection afforded to a trade union. If others did this they could get away with large sums

of money by way of income which might be denied to the professions when they are examined by the Monopolies Commission. However, what is at stake here is whether we are to have equality or inequality of treatment before this new law.
6.0 p.m.
The other, and I believe equally important, question of the machinery was also much debated in Committee. It concerns the independence of the Director General. The objective is to take a number of functions out of the political arena, according to my hon. Friend the Undersecretary of State in Committee on 30th January, but on Second Reading my right hon. and learned Friend said:
… the Government have decided … in favour of the appointment of a distinct and independent agency in the person of the Director General."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th December 1972; Vol. 848, c. 454.]
But in the discussion in Committee about the qualities which the Director General should possess, there was universal acceptance that he should be a watchdog, a diplomat, a lawyer and administrator, combining all that with being something of a publicist as well. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said that the Director General's independence was:
… central to the overall policy which we are trying to pursue … "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 30th January 1973; c. 87.]
Why is this precious independence to be so summarily and drastically curtailed by refusing to allow the Director General the same freedom of action with regard to the professions as he enjoys in the whole private sector of industry? There is an abundance of inconsistency in the Bill with regard to who can do what and when.
The Director General can initiate all manner of things before the Restrictive Practices Court, the Monopolies Commission, and his advisory committee. In the private sector, he is monarch of all he surveys. But in the public sector he is a mere lord-lieutenant to a politically-oriented Minister. So much for the desire to make him non-political. If there are restrictive labour practices to be investigated, he is bypassed. The Minister himself makes the reference. If there are restrictive professional practices he is again bypassed and the Monopolies Commission can only fulminate about


what it hears and learns. It can make recommendations about all sorts of things —but not about the professions and not about labour practices.
These anomalous inconsistencies are not fair, just, or necessary. Do the Government rest their case for referring the suspected restrictive practices in the professions straight to the Monopolies Commission on the commission's report of 1970? If that is the basis of the argument, then it is a fallacy because the commission, when preparing its report, worked on the premise that there was one option, to be found at the bottom of page 87. It said:
That a permanent commissioner, or body of commissioners, should have the duty of applying the considerations set out in this report to each individual profession, with the necessary judicial and executive powers for the purpose.
The commission turned against this option, explaining that it would mean setting up yet another public body. But a commission or commissioners are in effect provided by what the Government have subsequently done.
We must therefore conclude that the Government's argument is based on a false premise—the assumption that the commission found this the only way possible to deal with restrictive practices in the professions. The Government skated rather lightly over the fact that it might well have preferred just the solution which many of us recommend, a lower court in the form of the CAPC which could consider the matter on its prima facie merits or demerits and then either accept or reject it as it thought fit without trammelling the commission itself.
I urge my right hon. and learned Friend to give further thought to the basis on which he presented his argument and advocated the machinery for dealing with the professions' restrictive practices. The Bill must not only be fair but must be seen to be fair. Selective handling of those who may be operating, on the face of it, against the public interest will not be in the best traditions of fairness and justice. It will not be consistent with the treatment being meted out to other sections of the community and could also prove unnecessarily time-consuming for the commission itself. It may well be asked to investigate matters which the

Director and his advisory committee would have thrown out as not even being worth bothering the commission with. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will give further thought to the matter.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: Since there is nothing more undignified than a member of one profession being seen to defend that profession, as a member of the Bar I shall not enter into an apologia for my profession, or indeed for any other, save to say that I think the standards of the professions in this country and their general integrity deserve praise. Beyond that I am not prepared to go today.
I feel, however, that if public confidence in the integrity and standards of the professions is to be maintained, it is important that the public should feel that the professions are being treated under the Bill on the same basis as other services provided to the public. By excluding the professions, although I understand his argument to some extent, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is doing a disservice because the public will feel that the members of the professions are being treated as some form of elite. That cannot be in the long-term interests either of the professions or of the public, or of public confidence in the professions.
I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) has his tongue in his cheek in some of the things he says about the professions. As he said, he and other hon. Members are never reluctant to seek out the company and advice of members of the legal profession. I think we are a little abused but that does not really matter very much. What matters is that members of a profession should not be treated any differently from any other people.
I welcome the references made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman to the Monopolies Commission because they are sensible references, crisp and clear. I hope that they will be thoroughly investigated if there are abuses. But on balance it would have been far better for the professions to be investigated by the Director General and referred to the advisory committee and the Restrictive Practices Court, because the maximum scrutiny not only of the professions but


of the Government as a whole is in the public interest. It would be in the public interest if this schedule were omitted.

Sir G. Howe: I should like to reply shortly to some of the points raised in this debate and explain that the two additions to the schedule are parliamentary agents in paragraph 11 and the services of surveyors—land and quantity surveyors as well as the other surveyors —in paragraph 12; they ought logically to stand alongside the other surveyors already there. Parliamentary agents logically form part of the legal profession already there. They were inadvertently omitted from the first formulation of the schedule.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) and my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Sir T. Brinton) raised two examples with me—optical services and hearing aid practitioners respectively. They advanced various arguments why these should be added to the Bill. Obviously, I shall look again at those examples in the light of what my hon. Friends have said and in the light of the representations I have received.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston pointed out the extent to which optical services could easily verge upon the commercial. There are other matters which have been taken account of in relation to those who dispense hearing aids, not least some of the factors which can be spelt out in paragraph 21 of the Monopolies Commission report. We believe that we have made the right choice in making the selection we have made there.
I am sorry that I did not hear the whole of the speech of the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) although I heard most of it, together with that of my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry). They went a long way towards repelling, with reason, the speech of a rather contrary character made by the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton). I can understand how the hon. Member for Hackney, Central came to a different conclusion from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham.
My hon. Friend the Member for Merton and Morden (Miss Fookes) and

my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) both returned to the position they adopted in Standing Committee in arguing that we ought still to be dealing with the professions in exactly the same way as everybody else. They did it more temperately than did the hon. Member for Fife, West who asserted, in very wild terms, which were justifiably refuted by some of his hon. Friends as well as some of mine, the extent to which the professions were, or regarded themselves as being, immune from examination, above suspicion and so on. I rejected in my opening remarks, and I reject again now, that analysis of the question.
It would be wrong to conclude, either from the hon. Member's point of view or from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North, that it is necessarily right to solve questions by deciding that everything should be solved by "the same regime as everything else".
There is a different provision affecting members of trade unions in Clause 78. It seemed right to the Government to make different provisions for members of the professions also—in other words, to continue the provisions made by the 1965 Act.
My hon. Friend the Member for Merton and Morden raised the example of accountants and bogus educational institutions. I cannot comment on the points she raised. I have no doubt that the accountancy profession will take account of what she said here today. For bogus educational institutions to qualify within the provisions of the schedule we are restoring, they have to be engaged in the provision of educational services as they are defined. There are other methods of considering that problem.
6.15 p.m.
If one comes back to the heart of the argument, the professions and the institutions by which they are governed have held—and, many hon. Members acknowledge, still hold—an honourable and long-established place in the pattern of our society. As the Consumers Association's Press release, which has been quoted, says, they have varying ways of asserting and trying to maintain high standards of professional discipline and conduct. We should not too lightly disregard those institutions. We should not too easily


cast on one side the great institutions which helped to form our society into what is essentially a plural society. In other debates in this House, hon. Members have argued the case for regarding trade unions as institutions, as an essential and, to a greater or lesser extent, independent part of the plurality of our society. It is in the same kind of sense that one should pay respect to the institutions whereby the professions have, as most Members acknowledge, governed themselves for many years.
That is one of the reasons for treating them differently and for recognising that they have codes by which they regulate and conduct themselves, recognising that those codes can be treated with some respect. That is the argument behind the difference. Of course, it still comes back to the same point in the end. Notwithstanding that, certainly the Government believe that in the public interest they should be subjected to scrutiny appropriate to their position.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North argued that we were doing the wrong thing in leaving them subject to the Monopolies Commission and argued that we ought to have them made subject to the Consumer Protection Advisory Committee on the strength of paragraphs 350 and 353 of the Monopolies Commission's general report. In fact, the Monopolies Commission in the following paragraph gives the reason why that would not be appropriate. I quote from paragraph 354:
Course (3) would mean setting up yet another public body and requiring it not only Jo investigate the facts and report on the public interest but also to negotiate or enforce settlements and then to supervise their execution. Strong exception might well be taken to this and in any case this course would mean foregoing the advantage to be gained from employing a body with some experience of restrictive practices in the light of public interest.
That seems to be a good reason for rejecting the concept of establishing another body to do that which the Monopolies Commission can do very well in the light of experience.

Mr. Gorst: What I was really suggesting was not that the Monopolies Commission should be used but that the professions should not have access straight away to the High Court but should go to the Crown Court first, because the

Crown Court may well be able to deal with the matter without wasting the time of that august body. It is simply a question of having two stages. Since the advisory committee exists, it seems sensible to make use of it.

Sir G. Howe: I will not follow my hon. Friend in his legal analogy, because one can be confused. The Consumer Protection Advisory Committee is designed to assess, in its primary role, consumer trade practices and to make suggestions for the laying down of rules relating to them. It is best designed to function under Part II, as it now will do, and designed to make new regulations to cover those fields where no regulations or rules exist. For that purpose, it seems an appropriate instrument.
When one comes to consider the professional organisations, they are bodies which are subject to disciplinary codes. It would seem right not to subject them to two comparable organisations dealing with abuses, to put them in a position of double jeopardy, but to give them the proper means of treatment—namely, before the Monopolies Commission. That is the balance of our judgment. It finds support in the analysis made by the Monopolies Commission, and I hope that on that basis the House will support the amendment standing in my name.

Mr. Alan Williams: I reiterate, with no penitence, that it is not anti-professions to say that they should be treated under the Bill in the same way as other commercial interests. We want equal treatment for all commercial interests and a fair deal for the consumer. As one hon. Member on the Government side said, fairness has to be seen by the public to be done. Pointing out the shortcomings does not constitute a fierce attack. If there is that much sensitivity in certain quarters of the professions, it suggests that the complacency is even more deep-rooted than I suggested.
We do not dispute that integrity exists and that the majority of members of the professions do their jobs diligently to the highest possible standards. Nevertheless, we suggest that the existence of integrity must not only be a fact in itself but must be apparent. Equal treatment would have helped in this respect.
The Minister said that we should not cast aside or disregard institutions which


have done so much good work in the past. No one has suggested casting them aside or disregarding them. What we and the Minister's hon. Friends have suggested is supplementing the work of those institutions in so far as they have shortcomings.
The fact that they have shortcomings does not need to be proven any further. The right hon. and learned Gentleman himself, as I said in an intervention, vindicated our suggestion that there may be shortcomings and that extra remedies were needed by the announcement that the Lord Chancellor will be having discussions with the Law Society on its disciplinary practices in the near future. It is clear that the facility of these professional bodies for reforming themselves is not great enough.

Mr. Ronald Brown: Surely it cannot be argued that television engineers are ancient, yet it appears that they would come under paragraph 13(f). Therefore, to argue as the Minister did is nonsense.

Mr. Williams: That is a fascinating point. The intriguing thing about the schedule is that the Government have never attempted to justify the inclusion of every group. The Minister has not even tried to explain why he has added to the list which was struck out in Committee. He has simply stated the additions. This, however, seems acceptable to many of his hon. Friends.
The Minister said that we were wrong to say that the Director General cannot scrutinise the activities of the professions. The Director General will have power to initiate, but only in the context of the Monopolies Commission. This is the point that we have been making, that the advisory committee, now that it is being set up—it did not exist when the Monopolies Commission reported— should be used as an extra channel for dealing with possible complaints and abuses.
The Minister has announced a few references to the Monopolies Commission, which I welcome so far as they go. It has taken three years to get those few references, and there is no doubt that their announcement today has been forced upon him by the vote in Committee and his fear of the vote which will take

place today. The references he has announced will only scratch the margin of the problems of 15 groups of professions and at this rate it will be decades before the issues that we want considered are considered.
What we cannot understand is why the Government persist in debarring concurrent consideration of less complex issues by, say, the advisory committee or the Restrictive Trade Practices Court. There could be a two-tier or three-tier approach to this problem, instead of which the Government have said that there is only one level at which inquiry can be made into the activities of the professions. Other commercial interests can be investigated in a range of ways, but the professions can be investigated in one way only, and that the most cumbersome in the Bill.
What the Minister and the Under-Secretary have made no attempt to explain is how they can be sure that in future they will not wish to refer issues to the advisory committee. Why have they closed this option? If the schedule is struck out, there will be no requirement that any issue relating to the professions must be referred to the Restrictive Trade Practices Court or the advisory committee. It would be a permissive, enabling facility, giving an extra range of armaments if the Minister or the Director General in future required them.
Instead, the Minister's system will leave them completely in charge of their own affairs. Regardless of the public need, they will continue to regulate themselves. A series of Monopolies Commission static snapshots are no substitute for the permanent scrutiny that could be available if the full range of facilities under the Bill were brought into operation. This whole operation still smacks of capitulation to the professional lobby, with an absolute disregard for the consumers' interests. If the professions are so good at regulating themselves, what on earth do they have to fear from being covered by the Bill? Can we afford to exclude them when the secretary-general of one of the most prominent of our professional societies said in 1968:
Every restrictive practice in our profession is in the public interest and not in our selfish interest"?
That substantiates our case for us.

Question put, That the amendment be made:

Question accordingly negatived.

The House divided: Ayes 92, Noes 120.

Division No. 139.]
AYES
[6.30 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
O'Malley, Brian


Armstrong, Ernest
Horam, John
Oram, Bert


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Hunter, Adam
Oswald, Thomas


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Padley, Walter


Booth, Albert
Janner, Greville
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Brown, Robert C. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne,W.)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Brown, Ronald(Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechftord)
Richard, lvor


Buchan, Norman
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Judd, Frank
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Carter-Jones Lewis (Eccies)
Kaufman, Gerald
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Castle Rt Hn. Barbara
Kelley, Richard
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Concannon, J. D.
Lambourn, Harry
Sandelson, Neville


Cronin, John
Lawson, George
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Dalyell, Tam
Lipton, Marcus
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)


Davidson, Arthur
tyon, Alexander W. (York)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
McCartney, Hugh
Silverman Julius


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Stallard, A. W.


Deakins, Eric
Mackie, John
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Delargy, Hugh
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Strang, Gavin


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
McNamara, J. Kevin
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Dormand, J. D.
Marquand, David
Swain, Thomas


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Marsden, F.
Tope, Graham


Duffy, A. E. P.
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Torney, Tom


Edelman, Maurice
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Weitzman, David


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mikardo, lan
Whitehead, Phillip


Ellis, Tom
Millan, Bruce
Whitlock, William


Fookes, Miss Janet
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mitchell, r. C. (S'hampton, ltchen)
William, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Mr. Michael Cocks and


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Moyle, Roland
Mr. Joseph Harper.


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Murray, Ronald King





NOES


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Hayhoe, Barney
Onslow, Cranley


Astor, John
Hill, S. James A.(Southampton, Test)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Atkins, Humphrey
Holland, Philip
Owen, ldris (Stockport, N.)


Benyon, W.
Hornby, Richard
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Hornsby-Smith, Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Percival, lan


Biffen, John
Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Pink, R. Bonner


Biggs-Davison, John
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Bowden, Andrew
Iremonger, T. L.
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Bray, Ronald
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Redmond, Robert


Brewis, John
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Ridsdale, Julian


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Jessel, Toby
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Russell, Sir Ronald


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Simeons, Charles


Chapman, Sydney
Kinsey, J. R.
Sinclair, Sir George


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Skeet, T. H. H.


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Knox, David
Soref, Harold


Clegg, Walter
Lamont, Norman
Spence, John


Coombs, Derek
Lane, David
Stewart-Smith,Geoffrey (Belper)


Cooper, A. E.
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Sutcliffe, John


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
Le Merchant, Spencer
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Cormack, Patrick
Luce, R. N
Taylor, Robert(Croydon, N. W.)


Dean, Paul
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Tebbit, Norman


Dixon, Piers
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Dodds-Parker, Sir Douglas
Maddan, Martin
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Drayson, G. B.
Madel, David
Tilney, John


Emery, Peter
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Trew, Peter


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Marten, Neil
Tugendhat, Christopher


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Mather, Carol
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mawby, Ray
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Fortescue, Tim
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Weatherill, Barnard


Foster, Sir John
Meyer, Sir Anthony
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Fowler, Norman
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Winterton, Nicholas


Fox, Marcus
Moate, Roger
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Gray, Hamish
Money, Ernie
Woodnutt, Mark


Green, Alan
Morgan, Geralnt (Denbigh)
Worsley, Marcus


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.



Grylls, Michael
Morrison, Charles
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gummer, J. Selwyn
Murton, Oscar
Mr. Michael Jopling and


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Neave, Airey
Mr. Paul Hawkins.

Amendment made: No. 28, in page 12, line 26, after 'Schedule', insert
'(Services excluded from sections 14, 102 and
104)'.—[Mr. Emery.]

Clause 17

REFERENCE TO ADVISORY COMMITTEE PROPOSING RECOMMENDATION TO SECRETARY OF STATE TO MAKE AN ORDER

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Emery: I beg to move Amendment No. 30, in page 13, leave out lines 12 to 18.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): I think it would be for the convenience of the House to take at the same time Government Amendments Nos. 33 and 34, and Amendment No. 35, in page 13, line 27, at end add—
'(c) of misleading or confusing consumers by the use of varying units of price, weight or measure'.

Mr. Emery: These amendments greatly enlarge the range of effects which bring consumer trade practice within the field of the Director General's power to recommend that the Secretary of State should make an order. It will be seen that the first amendment deletes head (a) and the second is purely a drafting amendment to bring the wording of head (b) into line with the other paragraphs. The third amendment, which is the substantive one, substitutes for the more limited category defined in the original paragraph (a) of subsection (2) a much more general class which can bring any consumer trade practice with the effect of
misleading or confusing consumers with respect to any matter in connection with relevant consumer transactions
into the scope of the order-making power.
There was pressure in the Committee to ensure that the order-making powers were wide enough. Examples towards this end were the following: problems concerning artificially inflated recommended retail prices, or double pricing; not giving information on composition, as the Trade Descriptions Act catches only what is said and not what is left unsaid; the use of terms such as "worth" or "usually sold at", which are not caught by the Trade Descriptions Act; deceiving or confusing consumers about the extent of a

service which is being provided, as distinct from the extent or scale on which the services are to be provided; and deceiving or confusing consumers about the duration in time of a service. All these are matters about which we were concerned that there should not be doubt in the manner in which the Bill was worded in Committee.
The amendment therefore covers these practices, which have been considered undesirable. As the words
with respect to any matter
are now included in the clause, we are confident that it is drawn wide enough to give effective and comprehensive coverage. I think, therefore, that this amendment will obviously commend itself to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 33, in page 13, line 21, leave out 'a relevant consumer transaction' and insert 'relevant consumer transactions'.

No. 34, in page 13, line 22, at end insert:
'(bb) of otherwise misleading or confusing consumers with respect to any matter in connection with relevant consumer transactions, or '.—[Mr. Emery.]

Clause 21

REPORT OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REFERENCE TO WHICH S. 17 APPLIES

Amendment made: No. 36, in page 15, line 43, leave out from 'made' to end of line 44.—[Mr. Emery.]

Clause 22

ORDER OF SECRETARY OF STATE IN PURSUANCE OF REPORT ON REFERENCE TO WHICH S. 17 APPLIES

Mr. David Reed (Sedgfield): I beg to move Amendment No. 37, in page 16, line 31, at end add:
'(5) The Secretary of State may, in addition, lay before Parliament such orders in respect of consumer trade practices which he considers require urgent control irrespective of any report from the Advisory Committee'.
My purpose in drafting the amendment was to ensure that, together with the proposed amendment to new Clause


3 which was debated yesterday, the Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs would have an effective armoury to deal with market-oriented trade abuses. I had particularly in mind pyramid selling. The initial idea was that if the market-oriented abuses became a consumer trade practice, under the terms of the amendment the Minister would be empowered to bring orders to the House to deal with them without having to go through the machinery of the Director General or the advisory committee.
Following his statement yesterday, I accept that eventually the right hon. and learned Gentleman will deal with this whole question of pyramid selling and market-oriented abuses. It is a pity that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not present, because yesterday he teased me about some delay in sending him a report on pyramid selling. Had the right hon. and learned Gentleman been here —perhaps his hon. Friend will convey this to him—I should have apologised for the delay and explained that it was due to the amount of time that it took the Department of Trade and Industry to decide that pyramid selling was an abuse and that people should be warned about it. The difficulty was that several of my hon. Friends and myself were so busy trying to warn the public about the dangers that our efforts to get the necessary legislation introduced were held up. Apart from that, I accept that the right hon. and learned Gentleman intends to introduce measures to deal with this kind of trade abuse. I hope that when the measures arrive they will be good, because they will need to be good to deal with the situation.
The difficulty about legislating for this kind of practice is that we are not dealing with a static situation in which there is some kind of abuse that can be recognised and dealt with. We are dealing with a fluid situation. The people concerned are rogues looking for ways in which to get round the law. They are sophisticated rogues, and we need a sophisticated response to deal with them. I do not want during this debate to deal with pyramid selling as such, but it provides a good example to illustrate the kind of measures that will eventually be needed to deal with market-oriented trade abuses.
6.45 p.m.
On 29th March this year the Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs introduced his consultative document on pyramid selling. The idea was that everybody with an interest in the subject should express a point of view upon it. That was about six weeks ago. In that document the Minister was as scathing as he could be about many of the activities to which I referred yesterday. I accept the right hon. and learned Gentleman's good intentions in that document, but all it has done for the moment is to encourage many people to regard it as a statement of Government intention and then to try to find ways round it.
Within the last seven days two new pyramid companies have begun operations. Just before the debate yesterday I received a telephone call from a gentleman who began by saying "I want to put £600 into ladies' brassieres. What is your advice?". All sorts of images went through my mind about what he wanted to do with the £600, but it eventually emerged that a new company selling that article on a pyramid structure basis had come into operation and he was being invited to invest in it.
I asked for details of the firm, and he sent me a copy of the code of ethics which distributors in the firm are being given. It very nicely gets round the kind of provisions suggested in the Minister's consultative document. One of the key points was that people who invested in this kind of thing should get their money from retail sales and not from any form of recruitment bonus.
From the code of ethics of the firm— which, incidentally, is called Memory World (UK) Ltd.—comes the following sentence:
In consideration for training, helping and supervising an executive distributor in his or her organisation to such an extent that that distributor also becomes a marketing controller he will receive a payment monthly in perpetuity which is in direct proportion to the value of purchases made during the new distributorship so formed.
That means that six weeks after the consultative document was issued a company has produced a new formula on a pyramid selling basis which will enable it to get round the proposals in that document. I put this forward not particularly as an example of pyramid selling


but in order to demonstrate the need for flexible controls to deal with this kind of abuse.
An excellent example of what can be done is provided by a Private Member's Bill, a short one with a long title, which some of my hon. Friends and I introduced last year. It was called the Trading Representations (Disabled Persons) Amendment Bill, and it is now an Act. Its object was to prevent another kind of abuse, that of people selling from door to door, allegedly on behalf of the disabled. Eventually, with the good will of the House, the Bill went through, became law and became effective on 1st January this year.
Sure enough, almost every firm which last year was operating that kind of practice of sympathy selling and using the word "disabled" has gone out of business, because the penalties involved are severe. But the rogues have taken a step sideways and are now selling not on behalf of the disabled, but allegedly on behalf of charities, and they are still using the sympathy approach. It is therefore important for the Secretary of State to have flexible powers to deal with many consumer trade abuses, not consumer trade practices as defined in the Bill.
I do not want in any way to undermine the authority of the Director General or of his advisory committee. I am sure that once they begin to operate they will perform a useful task, but one possible difficulty which occurs to me is that references to the advisory committee, however able the people on it might be, will take time to be considered, particularly if they are complicated references. Some of these trade abuses spring up almost overnight. Somebody has a brainwave, and he then starts to produce some sort of scheme to con the public out of their money.
To be able to deal with that kind of abuse it is necessary for the Secretary of State to have powers to introduce new orders quickly so that the abuse is stifled in the bud before many people lose their money. That is the purpose of the amendment. It seeks to ensure that in an urgent case the Secretary of State, irrespective of any report from the advisory committee, can ask the House to approve an order to tackle a particular trade abuse.
I am not particularly concerned about the wording of the amendment. The principle behind it is that the Minister should have flexible powers to be able to take action irrespective of the whole panoply of measures included in the Bill.
I stress again that it is not my intention to try to undermine the Director General or the advisory committee. I believe, however, that the incidence of sudden changes in the actions of the sort of rogues about whom I have been talking is likely to grow. They are looking for new means of making money quickly at the public's expense. I am trying to give the Secretary of State sufficient power to deal with them.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: I support root and branch the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. David Reed). After having considered the consultative document produced by the Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs, I suggested in a letter to him that the fact that these pyramid selling companies had welcomed his consultative document should put him on his guard, because they were likely to get round the provisions that he was suggesting, where necessary, to curb their activities. I thought then that the Bill which I have introduced was watertight, I did not appreciate that companies could still get round it. They can do so in a host of ingenious ways.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sedge-field has conceived a most ingenious device in the amendment. I do not like to say "set a thief to catch a thief", but he is able to do this. This device would prevent companies from getting round either the provisions of any Bill which the right hon. and learned Gentleman might introduce or those of my Bill. I should be most content to abdicate my Bill, if necessary, in favour of the provisions proposed by my hon. Friend. His amendment would not detract from the authority of the Director General but it would make that authority flexible. If companies get round the Bill in a certain way and start another racket, it could be pounced upon easily and quickly by the Secretary of Slate in making regulations. In this sense, therefore, I warmly commend the amendment.

Mr. Ray Mawby: I am a little concerned about the points that have been


made. First, I believe that this is the wrong sort of Bill to deal with this kind of practice. It is dealing basically with consumers and it should not concern itself with arrangements between manufacturers and wholesalers, wholesalers and retailers and so on.
Both the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. David Reed) and the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Raphael Tuck) have said that it is extremely difficult to draft a Bill without accepting certain tactical facts of life. I found the same problem in trying to draft a Bill to deal with this matter. It is very easy to aim at the practices which we all know are extremely bad but at the same time to catch with that sort of legislation practices which we would consider perfectly normal, such as the many franchise arrangements which have been in operation for many years. It is difficult to draft legislation which will catch those whom one wants to catch but will leave the others in operation.
The second point which worries me, more so than the first point, is that if this proposition were carried through it would give any Secretary of State complete carte blanche to be able to say "In my opinion this particular practice is bad and all that I shall do is issue an order saying that from now on that practice is kaput." Hon. Members may suggest that what we have is the sort of order which would be subject to an affirmative resolution. We all know what takes place when such orders are brought before the House. They are usually slipped in at the end of normal business. Usually it is a very short debate in which one is not able to go into all the pros and cons. Most hon. Members will automatically assume that the Minister and his Department know better than they do and that, therefore, they should not argue but should let the order go through.
Under a Conservative Government I am not particularly bothered about giving a Minister those powers. But once we had given a Conservative Minister such powers, the Labour Party—God forbid! —might return to power. This is a gift. It is the Socialists' dream to be able to say that a particular Minister can at any time calmly override the advisory committee which is being set up and the

people who are supposed to know what they are talking about, and say "I shall now bring in a regulation because this particular practice is not working correctly."

Mr. Raphael Tuck: Surely the making of an order by the Secretary of State would not be introducing Socialism on a large scale. I know that the hon. Gentleman feels a sense of horror at a Socialist programme, but this proposition does not entail that. It is merely nipping in the bud any way out of the impasse in which these companies may be placed as a result of the Bill. Surely, any small disadvantage of allowing the Secretary of State to make an order is vastly outweighed by the great advantage of closing loopholes for this kind of operation.

Mr. Mawby: From that intervention it is obvious that the hon. Gentleman and I are on different wavelengths. He is automatically assuming that the Minister and his Department are full of the milk of human kindness, never make mistakes and will always do the right thing. It will not happen. We are all human. If someone has a particular idea that private enterprise is basically a bad thing but that one must seek to live with it because it is not politically opportune to nationalise everything at that moment, he might use this power; he might use it regularly, and not only to prevent a particular practice which is considered to be bad.

Mr. David Reed: As a Socialist, I am quite prepared to give a Conservative Minister this power, provided that we have the watchfulness of the Opposition Front Bench to ensure that the Minister does not try to slip through certain kinds of order. If I am prepared to make that concession to a Conservative Government, perhaps the hon. Gentleman would do the same thing for a Socialist Government.

Mr. Mawby: Clearly the hon. Gentleman is far more charitable than I. I do not see why I should agree to powers of that kind.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: Before my hon. Friend advances his argument to a point at which he may find that he has to vote against the Bill, may I point out that there are provisions in


the Bill which give the Secretary of State the right to make orders on the recommendation of the Director General?

Mr. Mawby: I have been a member of the House for a long time. In many of my speeches, under successive Governments, I have persistently objected to Bills which carried powers for the Secretary of State to do things by order. If something needs to be done, we ought to enshrine it in legislation and not give a Minister powers to issue a lot of orders.
That is the purist argument. In certain cases I accept that orders are the only way by which things can be done, but in the other cases the Minister is at least being advised by a group of people, an advisory committee or someone who has been specially appointed for his expertise on a particular subject. If this proposition were carried, the Minister could act without having to consult anyone. This would be dangerous.
The hon. Member for Watford and I both have Bills waiting in the queue. My right hon. and learned Friend has issued a splendid consultative document. I hope that he will be able to enshrine what he intends to do in understandable legislation. No doubt he is having great difficulties. However, when one cannot think of the right words it is too easy a way out to give a Minister, whoever he might be, blanket powers to disregard the expert bodies and do what he wants to do by order.
In general I object to any Minister being given more powers to do things by order. In this case the amendment, although we understand what is sought, would give far too much power, and I would certainly oppose it if it were pressed to a Division.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Michael Cocks: I am pleased to support the amendment. I would lay particular stress on the word "urgent", because there are commercial abuses which are so bad that they can brook no delay. The Minister should have the courage to give himself the powers to deal with this matter without allowing anything to stand in his way.
Perhaps I might give one or two examples. Tomorrow I have down for Second Reading two Bills designed to deal with two current abuses in commer-

cial life. One of them is the Hospital Insurance (Limitation and Publication) Bill. I presented it to the House recently as an attempt to deal with the "cash in hospital only" schemes which are now heavily advertised.
Although the matter is covered by Clause 26, which deals with the misleading of consumers by inadequate information, and by the provisions concerning consumers being subjected to undue pressure, if it is dealt with through the advisory committee under Clause 17 there is bound to be delay, so that a number of people will be lulled into taking up these schemes at great cost to themselves and with doubtful benefit. The Minister should therefore give himself the power to take urgent action.
I do not wish to continue about the hospital insurance schemes because I presented the case to the House only recently. I should, however, like the Minister to consider cases in which these powers would be useful for taking urgent action. That is dealt with in the second Bill which I am presenting tomorrow for Second Reading, the Loan Interest Rate Publication Bill. These Bills will probably be objected to, possibly not so crudely or openly as by the Whips, but no doubt from somewhere on the Conservative side a voice will come effectively to put in the boot.
However, even at this late stage the Minister should make representations through the good offices of his Whips that the Loan Interest Rate Publication Bill at least should be allowed to have a Second Reading unscathed because it deals with precisely the sort of situation—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I recognise the hon. Member's opportunity today as he sees it, but I hope that he will not continue in this vein.

Mr. Cocks: I realise that I am trying your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I hope in a moment to show the relevance of what I am saying. The Minister will recall that he took urgent action on the question of second mortgages, and he took the opportunity of an Adjournment debate initiated by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Sally Oppenheim) to announce a code of practice which, he said, he intended to try to get observed


by finance companies. That was an example of urgent action such as we are calling for in the amendment, and the Minister put it to the House as an effective way of controlling what he recognised was an abuse.
I have singled out one of the items covered—the publication of loan interest —because the Minister's code, produced in all good faith to deal urgently with the situation, is effective only to some degree. I wrote to over 2,000 firms advertising mortgages and advances in Bristol. They replied saying that they were observing the code, but the interest rates charged varied widely from one to another and the customer does not know what the rates will be until he receives the details from the firms or until he is able to work out the rates from occasional information given in the newspapers.
There are urgent situations which need action immediately. Certainly in the long term the advisory committee can produce the sort of report required in a nation the size of Britain, but every day's delay means that possibly hundreds, or even thousands, of people may be considering taking out schemes which the Department will know full well are inadvisable and certainly not in their best interests.
Therefore, any delay through the advisory committee channels is unacceptable. It may be all right in normal commercial practice but for things which occur from time to time I suggest that the existing provision is inadequate. I ask the Minister to accept the amendment so that he can take the urgent control that is necessary in these circumstances.

Mr. Alan Williams: I can assure my hon. Friend that the voluntary code to which he referred is very much a sham because, as I pointed out to the House yesterday, advice has gone out from the Department of Trade and Industry telling the finance houses that they need not observe the code on second mortgages over £3,000. The large second mortgage escapes the so-called voluntary code anyhow.
In Committee we were told by the Minister that prices were not included within the legislation but that they were covered by the Counter-Inflation Act. Eventually we accepted that explanation,

although with some reticence. Will he say whether the refusal to give a price is covered by the legislation and whether our amendment will give him the necessary power to bring that abuse within the legislation since it is a situation where swift action would be needed?
There was an interesting letter in The Times on Tuesday from, strangely enough, a Mrs. Heath. She had been trying to buy a new bed. She could not get a quotation of a price from the shops because they said that every delivery from the manufacturers had a higher price than before and such was the rate of inflation that they could not guarantee what the price would be. Apparently they could take orders for the item that she wanted but were unable to tell her what the cost would be when she eventually took delivery.
She obviously thought, as we did in Committee, that the Counter-Inflation Act would cover the matter and that there was no need for her to look in the direction of the Department of Trade and Industry. She telephoned the Price Commission. When asked whether the company had a turnover of £50 million, or of between £5 million and £50 million, or of between £1 million and £5 million, or of under £1 million she had to confess that on the spur of the moment she did not know.
She was asked what the price of the bed was six months ago and she said she could not say because the firm had refused to give her the information. They asked what the price was now and she said that she could not say because the firm had refused to give a new price. She was told "We cannot, Madam, investigate an assumption". So it seems that the situation exists in which firms are able to take orders and to refuse to give prices for the goods that are ordered. This situation seems to fall between the two pieces of legislation unless the Minister will be able to act himself to deal with this abuse under this legislation when it is passed. When Mrs. Heath eventually obtains her bed—I hope that she will obtain it at a reasonable price—how will she know, as the Price Commission is refusing to publish all the price increases which it approves, whether she is paying a fair price? To whom can she go? Can she ask the Department of Trade and Industry? It seems that the Price Commission is working very much on the


basis that it is up to the Department to decide which items are important and which are not. It seems that it will give publicity only to those price increases which it regards as important. I hope that the House will accept that I have spoken very pertinently to this amendment.
In an urgent situation under the Bill as it now stands could the Minister act alone? Could he act alone and go through the procedures of making an order without the initial steps which are envisaged without the recommendation of the Director General? I assume that he could not. However, if he could, and if he did make such an order, would the Director General have the right to make any subsequent comment and observation upon an order which he did not approve?

Mr. Emery: The amendment was in many ways covered by the part of the debate which my right hon. and learned Friend answered yesterday. As a number of new matters have been raised, some with varying relevance to the amendment, I shall try quickly to answer the questions which have been put to me.
In the event of anybody reading only today's HANSARD and not knowing about what happened yesterday, it must be right for me to stress the condemnation which the Government have for the aspect of marketing by a chain letter process which is now known as pyramid selling, and the desire which the Government have to take urgent action to overcome that process. Proof that we mean what we say is the issue of the consultative document and the statement made yesterday by my right hon. and learned Friend that the most careful consideration is being given to the replies which we have had following the consultative document. We are doing everything possible to see whether at a later stage we can use the Bill for a full and thorough piece of legislation to cope with pyramid selling.
I accept, as the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. David Reed) pointed out, that in any legislation there is a need for flexibility. I feel strongly, as he does, that the lack of any code of ethics by the people manipulating the type of marketing known as pyramid selling is such that they can spring up overnight. They will look for every loophole to try

to get round any regulations. It is of the greatest importance that legislation should be as thorough and as comprehensive as possible.
The hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Raphael Tuck) supported the amendment. I should not want to endorse his description of setting a thief to catch a thief. That was a hard description to use amongst supposedly honourable Members.
Obviously there was some ingenuity in the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Sedgefield. I am certain that he realises—and it is important—that he did not mention all the aspects of this matter. If he had done so his amendment would have fallen to the ground. His amendment was linked with an amendment to a new clause which was discussed yesterday. It would have brought systems of marketing and distribution within the definition of a consumer trade practice. The fact that it is not the case means that his desire to catch by order-making procedure the pyramid selling technique is not applicable. I have a considerable feeling in my bones that he moved the amendment for the purpose of finding out what the Government had to say about pyramid selling.
My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) is entirely correct in underlining the difficulty of drafting a Bill to catch people when it is necessary to catch the whole of the pyramid selling operation. However, I am not certain that this is necessarily the wrong sort of Bill. But I think that this is the wrong place in the Bill. The Bill does not deal just with consumers. It deals with monopoly and merger situations. If we can ensure that it is covered within the scope of the Long Title in a later stage I believe that the House would welcome the Government being able to act quickly and to use the Bill.
I shall deal with the general principle behind the amendment. The powers to make an order are just about as wide as it is possible to give any Minister. It could be said that if these powers were given to me I should be able to behave like an angel and never make a mistake. If anybody believes that, he is even sillier than I should have given him credit for. Of course Ministers make errors. Governments are not always correct. That is


why in the order-making procedure we have set up a specific appeal. That appeal has to be considered by the Director General and it has to go to the CPAC as another body which can act as a sieve. It will then go to the Secretary of State and from the Secretary of State to this House.
We have rightly guarded the very considerable powers which the order-making procedure will allow because it will be possible for us to act fairly quickly. I do not accept—even though such powers might be extremeily pleasant to have as a Minister—that any Government should necessarily have powers which are as wide as the amendment would suggest. They would mean that a number of items could be dealt with way beyond the aspect of pyramid selling.
I shall deal quickly with the point raised by the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Michael Cocks) about the publication of loan interest in consumer credit matters. I do not believe that the Bill is the right place for that matter to be covered. It will be covered by consumer credit legislation which the hon. Gentleman knows the Government have pledged to bring forward.
The hon. Member for Swansea, West suggested that the code I introduced was a "sham". I am sorry that he should go to that extent, because that is not the case. His description is a political attempt to denigrate a provision which is having a considerable effect in ensuring that the small borrowers have knowledge of certain basic facts when they apply for a second mortgage. It might interest the House that 94 per cent. of a sample which was taken by the Department of Trade and Industry in one month of last year indicated that all second mortgages are below £3,000. The point is that the way in which the interest rate and certain aspects of brokerage and commissions on loans above £3,000 are calculated is entirely different. I am afraid that what the hon. Gentleman said shows his complete lack of knowledge both of the working of the code and of second mortgages.
To sum up, I understand the desires of the hon. Member for Sedgefield. I endorse his wish to proceed fully and quickly on pyramid selling. He knows as well as I do the complications, and

I hope that he will accept the assurance given to him yesterday by my right hon. and learned Friend and those that I have given today. I feel sure that he will recognise the technical inaccuracies in the drafting of the amendment, but it has at least enabled us to have this debate.

Mr. David Reed: During the three years in which I have been a Member of the House I have never done as well as I have today. Within half an hour I have been described as a thief and as a provider of a Socialist dream. My hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Raphael Tuck) may have been affected by our earlier debate about the professions, and that may have swayed his judgment.
I accept the Minister's arguments. I see that the Government are tackling this problem urgently, but I wish that they had begun to tackle it urgently when they were first asked to do so about 18 months ago. I welcome this belated conversion and I hope that when the legislation eventually comes it will be as thorough as it needs to be. I warn the Minister that the suggestions which he puts forward will be closely scrutinised. I am afraid that the Minister will find it immensely difficult to plug all the loopholes, but I wish him the best of luck.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 23

PENALTIES FOR CONTRAVENTION OF ORDER UNDER S. 22

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: I beg to move Amendment No. 38, in page 16, line 38, leave out '£400' and insert:
'£750 or to a term of imprisonment not exceeding six months'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): With this amendment it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
No. 46, in Clause 46, page 32, line 19, leave out '£400' and insert '£750'.
No. 47, in page 32, line 25, leave out '£400' and insert:
'£750 or to a term of imprisonment not exceeding six months'.


No. 66, in Clause 84, page 63, line 11, leave out '£400' and insert:
'£750 or to a term of imprisonment not exceeding six months'.

Mr. Davidson: The purpose of the amendment is to increase the penalties or fines imposed by a magistrates' court for offences under the Bill from £400 to £750, and to enable the magistrates' court to impose a term of imprisonment.
I understand that the penalty clauses in the Bill are largely based upon penalty clauses in other consumer legislation. They follow closely the penalty clauses in the Trade Descriptions Act and the Unsolicited Goods and Services Act. The Trade Descriptions Act was passed in 1968, since when there has been a high rate of inflation. If the price of other things has gone up, it could be argued that fines also should go up, but that is not an argument upon which I base my case.
The Minister might agree that the time has come to look at all the penalties in consumer protection legislation to see whether they are adequate in today's climate of opinion. As the Minister will be the first to agree, times have changed since 1968. The public are much more aware of and take much more seriously abuses by large firms against the public interest.
Many of the firms which will offend against the legislation will be firms with large resources, many will be operating deliberately misleading practices which were intended from the beginning to be misleading. They will be firms that have been milking the public for a long time.
The offences under the Bill are of a particularly wilful and undoubtedly criminal kind. They include the making of false statements to the Director General who is investigating a possible monopoly situation, the wilful destruction of documents required by the Monopolies Commission and contravention of orders made after a report by the advisory committee. Does the Minister feel that a maximum fine of £400—or indeed a fine of any sort—is sufficient to deter such firms from committing these acts?
Firms with large resources may think that £400 is a cheap investment to make to enable them to carry on practices

which have brought and will bring much greater profits. The threat of a possible prison sentence imposed by a magistrates' court would act as a much firmer deterrent.
It is essential that the public should feel that the penalties under the Bill are adequate to deal with the abuses. I receive many letters asking what is the use of fining a firm which has put out a false brochure and milked the public when the profits of that firm are so immense. When I was concerned with the Unsolicited Goods and Services Bill and the Inertia Selling Bill I was criticised for not including a penal clause providing for imprisonment. I was told that the real criminal would not be caught—the firm which deliberately set out on a fraudulent path and which thought it could buy its way out of trouble.
In Committee the Minister promised to look at the penalty clauses and to consider whether the penalties were adequate. I do not intend to press the amendment to a vote. It is a probing amendment designed to test the Minister's views and to find out whether he feels it is right, in today's climate, with consumerism much stronger than it was in 1968, to base the penalty clauses largely upon the Trade Descriptions Act.

Mr. Greville Janner: I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. Arthur Davidson) said. It is important for a magistrates' court, if it sees fit, to have power to impose a penalty which will matter to the people who come before it. Where a company has been involved in unfair trading on a vast scale and has been making enormous profits from it, for the court only to have available a penalty of £400 in the present state of the value of that sum is pathetic. It is a fleabite for a firm of any substance and insufficient to make a firm jump into line with fair consumer practice.
7.30 p.m.
Let me give one example. In the past the House has debated the problems of double pricing, and apparently the Government have taken the view that this practice does not come within the scope of the Trade Descriptions Act. Therefore, presumably it is the sort of practice which the Government envisages being dealt with by this Bill.
The effect of double pricing is universal. It is used in the sale of beds and other items produced in vast quantities in which the manufacturers put out a series of spurious price lists, beginning with spurious manufacturers' price lists setting out prices at which the manufacturer does not sell the goods to the retailer. He sells them for less. There is then a false and fraudulent price list supplied by the manufacturer to the retailer with "recommended" prices far above those at which the goods will be sold, this being to the knowledge of the manufacturer.
We have all seen in shop windows signs saying "Recommended price £50—our price £30". The whole system is set up as a delicate bait to the buyer. Although the price may be fair, the whole system is one to which presumably this legislation is meant to apply.
A company which has been selling beds by this process for a number of years by the thousand will have made profits which stretch probably into hundreds of thousands of pounds because of this system of unfair trading. In these circumstances, the magistrates' court should at least have the power, if it so wishes, to impose a penalty which hurts just a little. I appreciate that bad publicity would be some sort of deterrent. On the other hand, I hope that the Minister will consider the possibility of extending the powers of the magistrates' court so that when matters come before it it will have the power to impose a penalty which would hurt the company and also those who run the company. In such a case one may reasonably hope that the penalty would act as such a deterrent that there would be no need to take the company to court.
The object of the Bill is not to strike at those who commit unfair practices and to bring them before the courts, but to encourage them not to commit those practices. At the moment the threats issued by the Government are on the lines of bringing prosecutions if there is evidence of double pricing. But that has not happened, and therefore the Bill should work admirably in this respect. Let the penalties be such that the people concerned in these matters will care about what is being done. We do not

want to bring people to court, we do not want to fine them or imprison them. We want them to stop cheating the public, deceiving the buyer, and if that is done the legislation will work very well with the minimum use of the courts' powers. I suggest that the courts should have sufficient power, even at magistrates' court level, to provide penalties which will hurt and which will matter.

Mr. Millan: I support the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. Arthur Davidson) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Greville Janner). There is concern about penalties in a number of spheres, particularly since with inflation fines soon get out of date. There is some justification for flexibility to allow penalties to be increased to take account of inflation as time passes. This may give rise to certain difficulties. I do not know how far we should encourage Ministers to increase penalties by statutory order, but there is a tendency to put penalties into Bills which follow penalties laid down in previous legislation enacted a number of years earlier. Therefore, in money terms those penalties are out of date.
My prejudice in a matter of this kind when we are dealing with businesses, and not necessarily small businesses, is for there to be quite substantial penalties in the legislation and if in any particular case there is no need for the magistrates' court or other court to impose anything like the maximum penalty, there is no doubt that the maximum penalty should be imposed but in appropriate cases the penalty certainly should be available.
We are dealing in these amendments not only with the matters contained in Part II of the Bill but with the monopoly provisions in Part IV related to Clause 46 and, later in the Bill, to Clause 84. Clause 46 deals with a situation where a suspected monopolist refuses to give information which the Director General has required from him to determine whether a monopoly situation exists and whether the matter should be referred to the Monopolies Commission.
In this situation the sums of money involved may be very substantial. There is a considerable vested interest on the part of the monopolist in seeking to


delay an investigation as long as he can. The La Roche case is very much in our minds at present and there have been complaints because the Monopolies Commission has had difficulty in extracting information from that company. There were particular difficulties because La Roche is not a British company. The withholding of information or refusal to give it may considerably delay reference to the commission and preparation of the commission's report, and the sums of money involved potentially may amount to many millions of pounds. Therefore, in those circumstances a penalty of £400 is quite derisory, as indeed is the penalty of £750 suggested in the amendment. Therefore, I welcome the part of the amendment which proposes a term of imprisonment. In this kind of situation in the public interest we want the Government and the Director General to have sanctions which count.
Clause 46 deals with the information and Clause 84 relates to monopoly or merger investigations. But the difficulty is much more likely to arise in a monopoly investigation rather than in a matter involving a merger, and it dear with people who deliberately frustrate the commission in carrying out its work either by not attending to give evidence as they are required to do or by refusing or neglecting to supply the necessary documentation.

Sir G. Howe: It looks as though the two amendments to which the hon. Gentleman speaks in terms of Clauses 46 and 84 make no variation in relation to the provision which deals with a refusal or wilful neglect to furnish information, which is left as a summary offence with the maximum fine of £400. They vary the provisions which deal with the crime of furnishing false information. In respect of the furnishing of false information in both Clause 46 and Clause 84, there is an alternative to proceed to trial on indictment with an unlimited fine. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman is speaking to an amendment with a more narrowly defined scope.

Mr. Millan: The technicalities of the amendment are basically the responsibility of my hon. Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. Arthur Davidson). If he has made the distinctions which the Minister has just indicated, I prefer to

leave him to deal with them. In any case, that does not substantially alter what I am saying.
I was dealing with Clause 46. One of the penalties provided for in Amendment No. 47 is that of imprisonment. I am speaking now of the offence dealt with in Clause 46(3). As the right hon. and learned Gentleman has indicated, it is rather more serious than the offence of neglecting to furnish information, for it is the offence of deliberately supplying false information.
I turn to Clause 84. The amendment here deals with the situation in which there is a Monopolies Commission inquiry taking place. There will be a number of duties imposed by Clause 84 on various persons for either attending to give evidence or for producing documentation. With the Roche inquiry very much in our minds the matter of failing to co-operate with the Commission is very relevant. This failure could severely handicap the Commission in its work and may, to a certain extent, frustrate the inquiry as a whole. In these circumstances there should be provision for penalties which, if imposed, would mean real punishment for the persons concerned. The penalties which are proposed by my hon. Friend are very modest, yet they are an improvement on the penalties at present provided in the Bill, and are the least which we ought to have.

Mr. Emery: It is important in considering these amendments that we should be certain about the different ways in which they apply to different types of offences within the scope of the whole Bill. Their basic objective is to increase the fines imposed on summary convictions from £400 to £750. This will be for offences under Clause 23, dealing with the contravention of an order made under the provision of Part II. Clause 46 relates to the refusal to furnish information and the giving of false information to the Director General of Fair Trading in respect of a monopoly situation, and Clause 84 deals with destroying documents or supplying false information to the Commission when it is carrying out an investigation.
It is interesting to note in passing that the Opposition seem to have decided not to table an amendment to increase


from £400 to £750 the penalty in Clause 84(5) for refusal to attend a Commission hearing. However, that is not of the greatest importance. The amendment seeks to provide for terms of imprisonment up to six months on summary conviction in the case of Clause 23 offences and for giving false information.
7.45 p.m.
In Committee one hon. Member asked me whether a fine of £400 was a standard amount in legislation for this type of offence. I am not a lawyer, of course, but my information, as I said to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) at the time, was that this was the normal maximum fine for this type of offence. I explained to the Committee that the maximum financial penalty in normal circumstances in magistrates' courts was £400, and that there were many statutes which required persons to provide information of various kinds to competent bodies or officials. In all these cases the failure to provide the required information is punishable on summary conviction by a fine not exceeding £400.
While I should not wish to intervene in what is not my responsibility—sentencing and penalties are of course matters for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary—it is generally contrary to Government policy to provide for short terms of imprisonment on summary conviction in this type of case. Opposition Members ought to consider that against the general arguments that they have put forward.
I come, then, to the argument of the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. Arthur Davidson) and of the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Greville Janner) that it is not realistic to impose this kind of fine upon a firm which could make large profits by continuing not to oblige. If it is making large sums, the difference between £750 and £400 will make little alteration. But it should be borne in mind that it would not usually be in a firm's interest to refuse to provide information requested by the Director General or the Monopolies Commission since refusal would inevitably give rise to suspicion that the company had something to hide.
The other evening when we debated the Roche case, I pointed out to the hon. Member for Craigton that it became evident that the company was unwilling to provide information and did not want to have its books inspected. Obviously that created a major element of suspicion.
If summary proceedings are brought against a company and the magistrate takes the view that heavier penalties than those available on summary conviction are appropriate, in more serious cases involving a breach of an order made under Part II it would be open to the magistrate to refer the case to the Crown Court. In such a case the company would be proceeded against on indictment where the penalty could be an unlimited fine, imprisonment or both.
I quite understand the objectives behind the amendment, and in certain ways I sympathise with the desire to make sure that penalties are effective. However, we believe that in the more serious cases we have the power to proceed on indictment and that in the case of summary proceedings we are complying with the normal pattern of the law.
As a parting shot, I might point out that the £400 fine is four times greater than it was in the previous measure dealing with monopolies when the figure was only £100. Clearly the figure has been reviewed in order to bring it up to the standard now considered normal.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: I have followed the hon. Gentleman's argument. As I said in my opening remarks, this is not the kind of amendment that one would press to a vote.
In defence of my drafting, I might point out that it was deliberate on my part. I did not think it appropriate to impose a term of imprisonment merely for refusing to supply information to the Director General. That is quite a different matter from wilfully destroying documents, which is much more culpable and more criminal.
Having listened to the hon. Gentleman, even though I have not been persuaded by his argument, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 34

ACTION BY DIRECTOR WITH RESPECT TO COURSE OF CONDUCT DETRIMENTAL TO INTERESTS OF CONSUMERS.

Sir G. Howe: I beg to move Amendment NO. 39, in page 22, line 31, leave out persistently maintained' and insert 'persisted in'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): With this amendment it will be convenient to discuss Government Amendments Nos. 40, 41, 42, 43 and 44.

Sir G. Howe: These amendments are directed to the same purpose in relation to the powers given to the Director General under Part III to meet a point raised in Committee.
It was argued in Committee that when the Director General brought proceedings under Part III against a trader who was continuing to break his obligations to the public, too heavy a burden would be placed upon him. Under the Bill as originally drafted he would have to show that the trader had taken part in a course of conduct, that it consisted of a series of contraventions, that it had been maintained, and that it had been maintained persistently.
When I replied to the debate in Committee, I said that I saw the force of the argument to the effect that too heavy a burden was being placed on the Director in that case. I went on to argue that, on the other hand, it would not be right to enable the Director General to bring proceedings, with the substantial powers made available to him under Part III, in respect of a single act of misconduct on the part of a trader. The hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Alan Williams) argued to the contrary saying that he thought that in certain circumstances even a single misdeed would be enough.
We are making changes here by replacing the words "persistently maintaining" with the words "persisted in" and by removing the words "a series of" from line 3 of Clause 34. We have lightened the burden on the Director General by making it significantly less difficult for him to establish a case against a trader who is falling down on his obligations to the public, but we have not made it so

much easier for him as to expose traders to proceedings of a substantial kind in relation to one misdeed.
I hope that we have the right balance and that, on that basis, the House will accept all the amendments in this group.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: It would be churlish not to express some appreciation to my right hon. and learned Friend for tabling these amendments in response to the amendments tabled in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) and myself.
It is with some hesitation that I advance the particular criticism that I want to make of these amendments, because yesterday so much abuse was hurled at the poor parliamentary draftsman regarding his needlework and use of English. I feel that replacing "persistently maintained" by "persisted in" almost qualifies him for an honours degree in hair splitting.
In Committee I expressed as my main concern that the Director General may find himself in the Restrictive Practices Court with the burden of having to prove a degree of persistence. My right hon. and learned Friend said that it was difficult to get this definition right. I acknowledge immediately to the parliamentary draftsman that I tried to amend the amendment and the only thing with which I could come up was "recurrently maintained", which was even worse than the amendment as drafted.
My right hon. and learned Friend's argument commended itself. He said that in some cases one malpractice could be so outrageous as to make it feasible to be raised in the Restrictive Practices Court while in other cases it would not be unreasonable to allow several such unfair practices to take place before action was taken.
I would go further. I can think of very few instances of consumer malpractices which are so outrageous on one occasion that they would not be covered by legislation other than that contained in the Bill. Or, for example, in a case where one wants to take action particularly quickly, such as a case of progressive liquidation, the malpractice would have to take place more than once to be progressive.
I have purposely defeated my own argument and advanced my right hon. and learned Friend's, because I believe that is known as the "soft sell". However, I am still worried that the Director General is unduly restricted by the definition of "persisted in".
During the debate on Report, as we have moved from clause to clause we have been assembling, as it were, the corpus of the Director General. This is the clause in which we are to give him his teeth. It seems unfair that he should be given false teeth so early in his career. Therefore, I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend might consider amending the Bill further when it goes to another place to give the Director General the discretion that I welcomed so much in the amendments to clause 2.

Sir G. Howe: I should like to respond briefly to the observations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Sally Oppenheim). We share an understanding of the objectives and difficulties in this matter. In Committee I said that there was room for considering whether we have set too high a standard of persistence, which was the point my hon. Friend was making. On the other hand, I made it clear that we were not persuaded that there should be power for the Director General to act in respect of one incident alone. I believe my hon. Friend takes the same view.
The question is whether, by altering "persistently maintained" to "persisted in", we have altered the pattern sufficiently. I should not like to form the view that this is necessarily the ultimate perfect balance that could be found unless I had found it difficult to find an alternative. My hon. Friend has talked about her "recurrently maintained". It obviously is difficult to get any better formulation than what is proposed in the amendment.
On the basis that we have significantly moved from our original position in response to my hon. Friend's amendment, I commend the amendment to the House, but I will obviously look at the matter again in the light of what has been said.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 40, in page 23, line 3, leave out 'a series of'.—[Sir G. Howe.]

No. 41, in page 23, line 20, leave out persistently maintained' and insert 'persisted in'.—[Mr. Emery.]

Clause 37

ORDER OF, OR UNDERTAKING GIVEN TO, COURT IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER S. 35

Amendment made: No. 42, in page 24, line 27, leave out 'persistently maintained' and insert 'persisted in'.—[Mr. Emery.]

Clause 38

PROVISIONS AS TO PERSONS CONSENTING TO OR CONNIVING AT COURSES OF CONDUCT DETRIMENTAL TO INTERESTS OF CONSUMERS

Amendments made: No. 43, in page 25, line 20, leave out 'persistently maintained' and insert 'persisted in'.

No. 44, in page 25, line 22, leave out 'maintained' and insert 'persisted in'.— [Mr. Emery.]

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment No. 45, in page 26, line 30, leave out 'one-half' and insert 'one-quarter'.
We are dealing here with the definition of a controlling interest in a company. The Bill as originally published in Clause 39 defined a controlling interest as
one-quarter of the votes which could be cast at a general meeting of the body corporate".
That clause was taken out and another put in. In the new clause the "one-quarter" had been changed to "one-half". The one-quarter was taken from the 1965 Act where it was inserted basically in relation to newspaper mergers. As far as I know it has worked perfectly well in the years since 1965. It has not caused any difficulty. Therefore, I do not see why, in the slightly wider context in which we have the definition of controlling interest in the Bill, we should not maintain the proportion of one-quarter.
In practice, no matter what existing company legislation might provide, a controlling interest can be obtained with significantly fewer than one-half of the votes which could be cast at a general meeting. It may be that in certain


circumstances one-quarter would not be enough.
When we are dealing with persons who may have committed an offence and may be taken to be personally liable, we are looking for something which meets the actual situation rather than a theoretical possibility. I prefer one-quarter to one-half. Obviously the Government preferred that originally as well. It was only later that they changed their minds, for, as far as I can see. no very good reason.

Mr. Emery: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) moved the amendment in an extremely reasonable way. However, I make no apology for the change from one-quarter to one-half. As I said in Committee, this was done only after careful consideration of representations from the CBI and consideration to the interpretation of the law and other circumstances where a 50 per cent. holding is the common way of defining control.
This part of the Bill deals with the remedies that the Director General may pursue against someone who persists in a course of conduct detrimental to the interests of the consumer. Therefore, the question is how we should define the circumstances in which the Director General might seek an order against not the offender himself, but some other person. The proposition that the court should make an order against a third person is, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will accept, an unusual procedure. Indeed, it indicates the Government's intention that this part of the Bill should have teeth. In other words, we are going after the person who might be behind the front man. Therefore, it may be necessary to seek an order against the person who has a controlling interest in a company and who may appear to be ultimately responsible for the company's conduct. That is what Clause 38 does. It is fair and reasonable that its definition of "controlling interests" should be properly and tightly drawn and in line with that which operates for company law purposes.
We understand the arguments of Labour Members who fear that there may be someone who is not covered by what we are saying. But, after consideration, we believe that the normal definition for Companies Act purposes—

the 50 per cent. holding—should obtain. The hon. Gentleman said that for the purposes of the Act a newspaper proprietor is defined to include any person having control of more than one-quarter of the votes in a newspaper company. Our original drafting did not go along with the normal company law basis but followed the definition for newspaper mergers. The definition of control is not the definition which normally operates for company law purposes. If the hon. Gentleman wants references he will find that Section 194 of the Companies Act 1948 applies.
The 25 per cent. control test was severely criticised when the Bill was originally published and we concluded that there was force in the representations. That is why we have reverted to 50 per cent.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 54

REPORT OF COMMISSION ON MONOPOLY REFERENCE

Mr. Emery: I beg to move Amendment No. 48, in line 9, leave out 'any of the provisions' and insert 'subsection (1) or subsection (2)'.
This is a drafting amendment to remove any possibility of doubt on what is a technical point. Clause 54(3) spells out how the Commission is to proceed when it concludes that a monopoly is operating against the public interest. It has to go on to consider possible remedies and to make recommendations. It is the intention that this procedure should be followed in all cases where the commission is called upon to consider the public interest issue.
It is possible that Clause 54(3) as it stands might be thought ambiguous. This is because it refers to the facts found by the commission in its investigation under any of the provisions of Clause 49. When we turn back to Clause 49 it will be seen that the expression "any facts" appear only in subsection (1) dealing with monopoly reference framed in general terms and not in subsection (2) dealing with limited references. In the latter case the commission is not asked to report on the facts but to report on the acts or the omissions of the monopolist.
If Clause 54 were left as printed there could be room for doubt whether subsection (3) was intended to apply to investigations under Clause 49(2). The amendment puts it beyond doubt that investigations under both subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 49 are covered.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Emery: I beg to move Amendment No. 49, in page 39, line 21, at end insert:
'(5) Where, on a monopoly reference not limited to the facts, the Commission find—

(a) that a monopoly situation exists, and
(b) that the person (or, if more than one, any of the persons) in whose favour it exists is a party to an agreement to which Part I of the Act of 1956 applies,
the Commission, in making their report on that reference, shall exclude from their consideration the question whether the provisions of that agreement, in so far as they are provisions by virtue of which it is an agreement to which Part I of that Act applies, operate, or may be expected to operate, against the public interest; and subsection (3) of this section, in so far as it refers to facts found by the Commission in pursuance of their investigations, shall have effect subject to the provisions of this subsection '.
This amendment is slightly simpler. It is intended to prevent any overlapping of the functions of the Monopolies Commission and the Restrictive Practices Court.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 55

TIME-LIMIT FOR REPORT ON MONOPOLY REFERENCE

Amendments made: No. 50, in page 39, line 32, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.

No. 51, in page 39, leave out line 34.

No. 52, in page 40, line 1, leave out from beginning to 'allowing' in line 11 and insert:
'Directions may be given—

(a) in the case of a monopoly reference made by the Director or by the Secretary of State otherwise than jointly with one or more Ministers, by the Secretary of State, or
(b) in the case of a monopoly reference made by the Secretary of State jointly with one or more other Ministers, by the Secretary of State and that Minister or those Ministers acting jointly,'.

No. 53, in page 40, line 15, leave out 'may give directions'.—[Mr. Emery.]

Clause 64

MERGER SITUATION QUALIFYING FOR INVESTIGATION

Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment No. 54, in page 45, line 39, at beginning insert:
' Subject to subsections (3)(a) and (3)(b) of this section '.
I suggest that it will be for the convenience of the House if we can also discuss the following amendments: No. 58, in page 46, line 30, at end insert:
'(3A) A merger reference shall be made to the Commission by the Secretary of State in circumstances where subsections (1) to (3) of this section apply and the value of the assets taken over exceeds £20 million.
(3B) A merger reference shall be made to the Commission by the Secretary of State in circumstances where subsections (1) to (3) of this section apply and the merger concerned is a conglomerate merger '.
No. 64, in Clause 83, page 61, line 44, at end insert:
' (1A) Where, under the provisions of this Act, the Commission find that a merger situation qualifying for investigation has been created and the value of the assets taken over or to be taken over exceeds £20 million, or the merger concerned is a conglomerate merger, such a situation shall be taken by the Commission as operating or expected to operate against the public interest unless it has been shown to the satisfaction of the Commission that the situation has made or may reasonably be expected to make a positive contribution towards the objectives outlined in paragraphs (a) to (e) of subsection (1) of this section'.
We are now dealing with the question of references of mergers to the Monopolies Commission. The purpose of these amendments is to provide that in certain circumstances there will be automatic references to the commission. Amendment No. 54 is a paving amendment. The substantial amendments are Nos. 58 and 64. Amendment No. 58 provides that where the assets to be taken over in any merger operation exceed £20 million, or where a merger is a conglomerate merger, there will be an automatic reference to the commission.
Amendment No. 64 provides for an amendment to Clause 83 of the Bill. It changes a presumption of the public interest in the two cases which I have mentioned. It provides in those cases that there has to be demonstrated a definite gain to the public interest before the merger is allowed to go through. I shall


not argue these amendments at any length because this area was well traversed in Committee.
I accept that there has to be a certain element of flexibility over the question of whether a reference of a merger should be made to the commission. It is not the intention in these amendments to introduce a rigidity into the situation generally. It is difficult to take account of all the circumstances which ought to be considered when the decision whether to make a merger reference to the commission is taken. In the nature of things, even with a very much better defined merger policy than we now have, there is bound to be considerable uncertainty in business and elsewhere about the considerations which have weighed most heavily with the Government in deciding whether to make a merger reference in any case.
8.15 p.m.
It is a common criticism of the present situation that mergers raising apparently similar considerations are treated differently by Ministers. In one case a reference is made but in another the merger is allowed to go through in a way which, to put it no higher, is extremely puzzling to business, industry, financial journalists and others who take an interest in these matters. I do not believe that this area of uncertainty can be completely eliminated, although I take the view that a much more coherent statement of merger policy is required than anything we have so far had. If that were provided for—in Committee we tried to insert the relevant provision in the Bill —a good deal of uncertainty would be removed.
It is not possible to remove uncertainty generally. It seems that there are certain mergers which we should now treat as being prima facie subjects for investigation. In other words they are likely in the vast majority of cases, or in every case, to raise issues of such importance that it would be wrong that they should be allowed to go through without examination by the commission. The two areas defined in this set of amendments are mergers which are of a scale where the assets taken over are more than £20 million—these cases are likely to be the most important ones and raise the most important issues of public interest, including matters of employment, concentra-

tion of industry and of economic power— and, secondly, the conglomerate merger in which the dangers of financial manoeuvring with little real economic justification are at their highest. The Minister knows how I feel about this.
In these two areas there ought to be automatic reference to the Monopolies Commission. This kind of provision would not overburden the work of the commission, at least not if it is strengthened as I would like to see it strengthened. It is not impractical in the sense that it imposes a number of references which would be beyond the commission. It strikes a balance between what I would like to see by way of references and what I believe to be practical.
Our suggested provision would remove a considerable area of uncertainty and would give notice to businessmen and others that certain types of merger would definitely be referred to the commission. It would therefore put them on their guard and make us much more certain than we can be at present that proposed mergers falling within these categories have substantial economic and other justification. It would automatically weed out a number of undesirable mergers which we now have, at the same time giving those concerned with other mergers falling within these categories the opportunity of arguing their case before the commission. If it was a good case, the commission would find in their favour.
Amendment No. 64, although it is related to the categories of mergers I have mentioned, introduces rather different and additional considerations.
There is considerable concern about the rate at which mergers go through. There has been a considerable acceleration in the number and value of assets involved in merger activities in the last 18 months, and there is no sign yet that that acceleration has exhausted itself. It is, therefore, likely to go on for some time.
This raises serious problems for the economy as a whole. As I said yesterday, I take the view that there is now a considerable economic case for slowing the rate down or putting obstacles in the way of these mergers at the rate they are taking place at present. I believe that they have gone beyond anything which can be reasonably justified in economic or social terms, and, of course, many of


the individual cases cause considerable hardship to employees and others.
In these circumstances, there is a strong case for changing the whole emphasis of Clause 83 and providing that, in any case where a merger has been referred to the commission, it will be found to be against the public interest unless it can show positive advantages or otherwise. In Committee we moved an amendment which, while maintaining the substance of Clause 83—particularly subsection (l)(a) and (e)—would have changed the whole emphasis and provided that positive good would have to be proved before the commission would find in favour of the merger. That amendment was turned down, although it had a certain amount of support from Conservative Members.
Amendment No. 64 does not go as far as that, but it says, with this background in mind—the increasing concentration of economie power in private hands and the considerable disquiet and anxiety about mergers—that in these very large merger cases involving over £20 million, or in conglomerate cases which often raise questions of asset-stripping and the rest, there would have to be proved a positive public advantage before the merger was allowed to go through.
This is a more modest amendment than that which we moved in Committee, but it seems to me to be immediately required if we are to get a genuine safeguarding of the public interest and of the interests of workers and others in the companies concerned in this situation, when the whole movement towards mergers has gone beyond what can possibly be justified on any reasonable economic or any other grounds.

Mr. Emery: We are dealing with two different types of amendment. Nos. 54 and 58 would make it obligatory for the Secretary of State to refer mergers where the value of the assets to be taken over exceeded £20 million or where the merger was conglomerate. Amendment No. 64 would introduce a new onus of proof. I will try and delineate between the two types. Both on Second Reading and in Committee the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) made this point. I accept that he feels strongly about the problems of the size and number of mergers. I have carefully con-

sidered what he said. I do not see a good case for referring all large mergers.
Circumstances are bound to vary. Some large firms can, for example, face intense competition in the wider European or international market, while very much smaller mergers can to a much greater extent diminish competition. Therefore, automatic reference of all large measures could stultify necessary rationalisation.
As I said yesterday, the Government do not believe in bigness for its own sake. Nevertheless we want to ensure that small firms and businesses, which have been the backbone of British industry for a long time, are still able sensibly and properly to function in the industrial areas where they have proved so successful in the past.
The idea that one should automatically deal with the matter merely on ground of bigness does not seem to us to be the sensible approach to the overall circumstances of the way in which merger references should be judged. There is nothing in the Bill which inhibits an active policy of reference to the commission. Both my right hon. and learned Friend and I have said that the Government, in our consideration of cases for possible reference, are following a policy of ensuring that, where we are in any doubt, reference shall be made and certain factors given the very closest attention.
Those factors are as follows: any disadvantage which might arise from sheer size in itself; any significant reduction in competition which would seem to carry with it the danger of abuse of market power; the likely effect of the merger on efficiency; in the case of a conglomerate bid, the degree of industrial and commercial logic in the proposed merger and the extent of the bidder's market power already in particular sectors and in general; and, in addition, the problem of the vertical merger, where the power of the manufacturer moving into the marketing of his product might well have considerable influence in that sector. We also consider carefully any significant regional policy and the employment considerations which go with the companies being merged.
As I said quite specifically in Committee, any stripping, any tax avoidance or any short-term gain motives for mergers are factors which are looked for


and would be matters which would immediately bring the consideration of a reference right to the fore.
Moreover, if in any case the issues are finely balanced, let me repeat that the decision will normally be taken in favour of a reference. We do not think it is necessary, therefore, to build in the automatic £20 million asset test. We believe it would give a degree of inflexibility to the consideration of merger policy which the Government would not welcome.
8.30 p.m.
I now turn to Amendment No. 64. As I said, here we see an amendment to shift the onus of proof in relation to two specific categories of merger referred to the commission—mergers involving the takeover of assets in excess of £20 million, and conglomerate mergers. If this amendment were carried, the commission would be required to report on the reference in these cases, not as the Bill or as the present legislation requires—in other words, whether the merger is contrary to the public interest—but on the ground of whether it would positively benefit the public interest. Initially this might seem to have some attraction. In Committee a number of hon. Gentlemen saw some possible benefits in this type of approach.
I remind the House that both the previous administration and the present Government have used their powers to refer mergers fairly sparingly. This is because the general view has been that not only are the majority of mergers not objectionable but that they are often beneficial to the national economy.
However, during the last six months the Government have made more frequent references to the commission than was the practice of the last administration. I underline that fact because certain criticism has come from the Opposition Dispatch Box at times which seems to neglect it. Only about 100 takeovers a year are caught by one or other of the two tests in the Bill—either the market share or the size of assets. Therefore, it is true that recent evidence suggests that the level of concentration in British industry has become higher.
The Government do not believe there is enough evidence to support the view that we have now reached a situation that mergers caught by the Bill, or even categories of mergers referred to the com-

mission as suggested in the amendment, can be presumed to be unwelcome unless positive benefit to the public interest can be demonstrated.
The existing principles which I have outlined have worked efficiently. The Government consider that the powers in the Bill are already adequate to get any merger about which there are doubts referred and investigated. If there seems to be justifiable doubt about a merger, it is stopped. There is no need for fear that the commission will not in ail cases look carefully into the various points on which concern has been expressed.
The Government, and in future the Director General, will continue to keep a close watch on mergers and their effect on competition and the structure of the economy. It would be wrong for it to go out from this House that all mergers are automatically wrong and that many of those which have taken place have failed. On the whole the rationalisation within industry has been necessary in order for us to be able to compete within Europe and internationally. If changes need to be made in the future, they can be made. There is no justification for a basic change at this stage in the attitude to mergers, or even, as is suggested, to a certain limited category of mergers. What we want to try to ensure is that the criteria I outlined at the beginning of my speech are those which are considered and are those which the mergers have to overcome.
Therefore, while I understand the feeling behind the amendments, I am sorry to have to say to their sponsors that I cannot suggest that the Government should accept them.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment No. 55, in page 45, line 40, after 'Secretary of State', insert 'or the Director'.
This amendment would give the Director General as well as the Secretary of State the power to make a merger reference. I want to put on record again our dissatisfaction at the fact that, having created this very important post and promised that the person appointed will be of considerable consequence, status and ability, the Government should have excluded the Director General from the important area of merger references.
This is wrong in principle. It is wrong that the Government should have a power of veto over monopoly references by the Director General, but to exclude him altogether from the merger area is even more of a mistake and likely to be even more detrimental to a coherent and active mergers policy.
If the amendment were accepted, consistent with the monopoly references provision, presumably the Government would want a veto power. I should be against that, but if that were part of the price of inserting the Director General at this point, it is a price that, despite my reservations, I should be willing to pay. But what is quite wrong, and what was not argued with conviction in Committee, is the Government view that from this important and sensitive area, the Director General should be eliminated altogether.

Mr. Emery: I immediately accept that the judgment here is pretty finely balanced, as I made clear in Committee. But even after reconsideration, I still have to say that the Government have come down in favour of the power to refer mergers being reserved to the Secretary of State. There are four reasons, two more important than the others.
The first is experience. After all, experience of dealing with mergers has only been accumulated since 1965. It is much shorter than the experience of monopolies, which dates from the 1948 Act. Thus the policy on mergers is more fluid. If one looks back over the short period of our memories about mergers, one can recall that, when the last Government created the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation, different views were expressed from their Front Bench from those which the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) has expressed tonight. When the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) was Minister of Technology, the philosophy was to have mergers here, there and everywhere. The climate has considerably altered, as was obvious from my speech on the last amendment.
The situation regarding mergers is therefore more fluid and less settled than that on monopolies. The merger situation is dynamic and immediate and may

raise urgent issues. As we have seen all too frequently, mergers can even fall through because of a reference.
The concept is that in a dynamic and immediate situation—which is exactly the opposite of the situation as regards monopolies, which is very static and often goes on and will continue to go on— this is a responsibility which should appropriately be taken by Ministers. Therefore, whilst I see the point and accept that there is something in the argument being put forward by the hon. Gentleman, for the reasons I enunciated we have reached the view that it is better to hold to the present position that reference should be made by the Minister and not by the Director General.

Mr. Millan: The Minister said that, unlike a monopoly, a merger is a dynamic situation. There is a certain amount of truth in that, although it is amazing how quickly dynamism goes out of these situations when the parties concerned are called upon to prove their case with a reference to the Monopolies Commission. It is amazing also how rapidly the dynamism goes out of some of these mergers which are not referred, actually go through and prove disastrous to everybody concerned, including the shareholders of the companies involved.
But that is not the main point I want to make. The Minister seems to be arguing that because this is a dynamic and sensitive area Ministers are somehow or other peculiarly well fitted to deal with it, whereas the poor old fuddy-duddy Director General will not be capable of dealing with anything as difficult as that. If the Minister's argument does not mean that, I am not sure that it means anything at all. I want to put on record that I completely reject an argument which, it seems to me, is rather offensive to the no doubt distinguished person who will ultimately be appointed Director General under the Bill.

Mr. Emery: By leave of the House, may I just make one point which I think shows that the Government do not consider that the Director General will be a fuddy-duddy.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, although I did not mention it in the debate, we have given specific responsibility to the Director General in the matter of mergers.


He will in fact be chairman of the mergers committee dealing with the consideration of advice to the Secretary of State. We are not sweeping the Director General to one side. He will have a specific rôle to play in merger cases.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Cyril Smith: I beg to move Amendment No. 56, in page 46, line 5, leave out 'either'.
With this I understand we are to consider the following amendments:
No. 57, in page 46, line 10, leave out 'assets taken over' and insert:
'combined assets which would result from the merger'.
No. 11, in page 46, line 10, at end insert 'or
'(c) as a result significant redundancies will be created in an area of high unemployment'.
I noticed that in his answer a few minutes ago the Minister said that the Government were not in favour of bigness for the sake of bigness. I trust that the inference, since he was looking at me as he said it, was not that I should go on some sort of diet.
The amendment which I have just moved and the amendments which we are considering with it are important because they seek to widen the ministerial powers contained in the proposed Act. I think that when considering delegating to a Minister powers under an Act we should be extremely careful and sure that in fact it is a good thing. I would stress, however, in moving the amendment that all we seek to do is to increase the scope of the power of the Minister, because the Bill clearly says "may" and not "must". Therefore all this amendment would do is increase the scope of his ability to refer proposed mergers to the commission, not necessaily requiring him to do so.
I think it is generally accepted that mergers in industry can be good things. It is equally accepted that they can be bad.
8.45 p.m.
What matters is to make certain that when mergers take place they are in the best interests of all concerned, including not only the State and the shareholders in the company, but also the employees. Amendment No. 11 says specifically that if as a consequence of a merger unem-

ployment may result in areas which already have high levels of unemployment, the Minister may refer the proposal to the commission.
The second amendment is important. It is possibly subtle, but certainly it is sweeping in its consequences, because whereas the Bill says that mergers may be referred to the commission where the assets to be taken over exceed £5 million, the amendment says that the Minister shall have such power where, as a consequence of the merger, the total assets may exceed £5 million. There is a subtle and distinct difference between the two points of view.
The CBI said today that it is in favour of works councils. The Prime Minister in addressing meetings is now using the phrase "worker participation". I think the Minister will agree that there is a growing interest in this matter. Employees' interests are as important in this situation as are those of shareholders. Therefore, the amendments seek to ensure that in virtually all circumstances of mergers the Minister has power to refer them to the commission.
We believe that this power would considerably strengthen the Bill. We believe that the Bill would benefit as a consequence of it. We believe that it may prevent the Minister from having to attempt to seek new powers or find ways round the existing powers at later stages, and I shall be surprised if the hon. Gentleman finds himself unable graciously to accept the amendments.

Mr. Emery: I think that when, on a previous amendment on the question of mergers, I said that the Government were not in favour of bigness for bigness' sake, the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Cyril Smith) would not have been surprised if, on looking at the benches opposite, my glance had fallen on himself. I did not know then that he was giving notice of any merging, but we take that as an indication of a happy event for the future.
The hon. Gentleman beguilingly suggested that I should find it easy to accept the amendments, but I have no doubt that he said that very much with his tongue in his cheek. The first amendment is a paving amendment. Amendment No. 11 states:
as a result significant redundancies will be created in an area of high unemployment.


This is a definitive factor. The hon. Member for Rochdale was kind enough to be in his place during our previous debates on the merger situation. I said then that we took into account the employment and redundancy situation, not only in areas of high unemployment but throughout the country.
There is a significant factor which the hon. Gentleman has perhaps neglected to consider. Certain types of merger are essential for the saving of the companies concerned. A merger may bring redundancies, but if a particular merger does not take place both companies may go out of business, thus causing an even greater amount of redundancy than might be brought about by a merger.
The hon. Gentleman would not want any limitation in that respect, particularly if it was in his constituency of Rochdale that two plants might close and create unemployment when bringing the two together could save, perhaps, 60 per cent. or 70 per cent. of the joint jobs.

Mr. Cyril Smith: As the clause says that a reference "may" be made, and not "must", does not the Minister agree that those are the sort of circumstances in which the Secretary of State would exercise his prerogative not to make a reference?

Mr. Emery: I concede that possibility. But the situation is that we would also want to ensure that the reference was made in a way which did not pick out a specific or significant factor above many of the others I have listed.
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever) once gave some very good advice. He said that, when one changed the law, people believed that one meant something different. The considerations behind the amendment are being borne in mind at present. If we spelt them out, as the hon. Gentleman is suggesting, it would appear that we were giving this matter more significance than others of the considerations I have listed, because the change would be considered to mean something. Therefore, in these circumstances the amendment is not necessary and I cannot accept it.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Emery: I beg to move Amendment No. 59, in page 47, line 14, after 'sum', insert:
'(not being less than £5 million)'.
This amendment relates to the power by order to vary the £5 million figure. In Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) asked about the movement of the figure up and down and whether we had any intention of lowering the figure to below £5 million. I said that that was not so, and undertook to table an amendment. This amendment fulfils that undertaking.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 74

REFERENCE IN ANTICIPATION OF MERGER

Amendments made: No. 61, in page 54, line 36, after '69', insert:
'(Variation of certain merger references)'.

No. 62, in page 55, line 11, at beginning insert:
' in section (Variation of certain merger references),'.—[Mr. Emery.]

Clause 83

PUBLIC INTEREST

Mr. Alan Williams: I beg to move Amendment No. 65, in page 62, line 3, at end insert:
'(2A) For the purposes of this Act, failure to keep fully and accurately informed, or failure adequately to consult, or failure to take fully into account and safeguard the interests of, the employees affected by a merger shall be taken by the Commission to be a matter which operates against the public interest'.
It is not my intention to follow my usual tactic of asking a great many questions, because, having witnessed the close attentiveness of the hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack) to the Minister's requirements on the last amendment, I fear that if I were to ask too many questions the Minister might be buried beneath a flood of small pieces of paper.
I also noted with interest that the Liberal presence was heard and was not seen for long. It seems that throughout the Bill the Liberals have treated the House as a convenient means of obtaining a small amount of publicity for the


minimum amount of work. We did not see them in the Committee stage and their participation on Second Reading was minimal.
Here we are dealing with an amendment which concerns the need for care for the workers within a firm where a merger is proposed. In spite of all the protestations of concern in this respect, it is beyond the Liberal Party representatives to remain in the Chamber for an extra five minutes, perhaps to make a contribution on a subject which that party will no doubt proclaim as a major part of its manifesto at the next by-election. The fact that it will bear no relationship to any other manifesto in any other by-election they have fought is of little relevance.
The objective of the amendment is clear, although perhaps the wording is not the correct way of achieving it. As I think is recognised on all sides of the House, when a merger takes place not only the shareholder is involved. Whereas the shareholder's risk is a financial one, it is not as absolute a financial risk as that of the worker, because the average shareholder spreads his holding over eight to 12 companies. Even if he faces a risk in any one of them he has hedged his bet by numerous other investments, so that while he may suffer a partial loss he is rarely in danger of suffering an absolute loss.
That contrasts with the position of the worker in industry who, particularly if he is employed in one of the less-favoured areas of the country in employment terms, finds that his loss is absolute, complete and, in far too many cases, permanent. The only capital that a worker has is his skill and his job. The more specific the skills of the firm in which he works and the smaller the locality, the less likely it is that he will find an alternative outlet for his investment in industry—namely, his training and his skill.
This is even more of a problem for the older worker, as we find, tragically, too often in the development areas. Even when other employment is available within a locality, it is highly selective in terms of age and in terms of another group which may be hit by redundancies —the disabled. Both these categories find it singularly difficult to obtain further

employment when their original work disappears.
It seems to us reasonable that, since the talk on the Government side is about participation, we should ask whether that participation is to be meaningful. If it is, an indication must be given in the Bill, since it covers major industrial activities of great relevance to the working lives of so many people. There must be an indication that the worker is to be given every bit as much consideration as the shareholder, bearing in mind that the worker has a greater stake in any firm.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Emery: The purpose and effect of the amendment is largely, as the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Alan Williams) said, concerned with any failure on the part of a company or companies concerned in a merger to take fully into account and to safeguard the interests of affected employees. Further, it is concerned with failure to consult employees and failure to keep them fully and accurately informed. It seemed that the hon. Gentleman did not deal with that. Such matters shall automatically be taken by the commission to be matters which operate against public interest. In that event the merger would fail automatically.
This is the third time this evening that I have stressed that employers should always take full account of the interests of their employees and see that their interests are safeguarded. They are also to consult them as necessary and to keep them well informed. At all times the principle set out in the Code of Industrial Practice should be followed. The hon. Member for Swansea, West, although he may not admire the code, probably believes in that instance that it is correct.
Section 83 of the code already contains a reference to the need to maintain and promote a balanced distribution of industry and employment in the United Kingdom. In addition, as has been made clear on many occasions, we take employment considerations into account when considering whether to refer to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. Therefore, it can be taken for granted that, where relevant, the commission will give due consideration to the employees' interests. It is always open to the trade


unions concerned to put views to the commission if it is felt that the employees' interests have not been taken fully into account or where there have not been proper consultations with employees.
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that since I have been in office many hon. Members and trade unionists have come to me to raise such matters and to explain their views. Often they are worried about redundancy or, for example, expansion. These are matters which have been made clear to the Government. I have normally been able to surprise such people by being able to indicate how far we have already gone in considering these matters. In fact, they have often been considered long before they were raised by hon. Members or by trade unionists.
At the end of the day the commission must balance the ascertained disadvantages of a merger against the ascertained advantages and consider overall whether the proposed merger is in the public interest. It would be very strange if, as a result of quite a small factor, it should be insisted that the commission's verdict must be against the merger irrespective of the advantages and the general desire of people to see it work.
I shall give an example. It might be said to be an absurd example, but perhaps it is not all that absurd. Let us say that a merger is going through with two companies which have a number of plants. We may find that the merger is likely to produce more employment in Craigton or in Swansea. That, of course, would be generally welcomed by the hon. Members who represent those constituencies. Suddenly it may be found that, because of a plant operating in Honiton, there are to be 20 redundancies, about which the trade union concerned had not been informed. Obviously, the trade union representatives in Honiton would be most concerned.
If the amendment were accepted and those specific factors applied, the merger would have to fail. I do not believe that that is what the hon. Member for Swansea, West wants. Major consideration is given to matters of employment and redundancy when references on mergers are dealt with by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
With that assurance, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not feel it essential to press the amendment.

Mr. Alan Williams: I understand the Minister's remarks about taking into account the local employment situation, but that is not what the amendment is concerned with. We are concerned here more with the personal level, almost regardless of the local situation.
The Minister put forward technical arguments against the amendment. I said at the outset that I recognised that the amendment might not be technically correct and that what I wanted was acceptance of the intention and perhaps an indication of how the Government would try to incorporate the intention of the amendment in the Bill. Unfortunately, the Government seem not to wish to do so.
The Minister referred to the consequences being automatic. The knowledge that these consequences would automatically follow would ensure that the company had the necessary consultations and had regard to the interests of the workers in the way required by the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 100

EXTENSION OF CERTAIN POWERS OF RESTRICTIVE PRACTICES COURT

Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: I beg to move Amendment No. 67, in page 74, line 2, at end insert:
'(3) The amendments to section 20 of the Act of 1956 and section 7 of the Act of 1968 contained respectively in subsections (1) and (2) of this section shall not apply so as to enable an order to be made against a trade association or against a person acting on behalf of a trade association unless the Court is satisfied that such trade association or person—

(a) in the case of the said section 20, had procured or assisted a party to the relevant agreement to make or to give effect to or to enforce or to purport to enforce such agreement or was likely so to do; or
(b) in the case of the said section 7, had procured or assisted the party to any relevant agreement against whom an order is made under subsection (3) of that section to do anything by virtue of which such order is made against him, or was likely to procure or assist him to do anything which would be a contravention of the order in its application to him'.




The Minister may recall my interest in the matter from last night's proceedings. I am concerned for all small traders and small firms, and combinations of both, who find themselves at a severe disadvantage as a result of quite praiseworthy and understandable efforts on the part of the Government to maintain and even restore competitive conditions in the economy. Last night, I showed the grave disadvantage at which the National Federation of Retail Newsagents found itself as a result of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1956, and the inability of the federation after the passage of nearly 16 years to take advantage of any of the gateways provided in that Act.
Tonight I concern myself with something a little different that arises on Clause 100 which aims to give power for a court order against parties to a restrictive agreement to be extended to the parties' trade association even though the parties act as individuals and without even the knowledge, let alone the approval, of the association.
I am aware that the court can already make an order against a trade association that is party to a condemned agreement. What concerns me is the way in which the court will be enabled to make an order against a trade association which administers or operates the agreement though it is not a party to it. That, to me, is the objectionable feature of the clause.
I shall not be able to accept an assurance from the Minister that a trade association would be given an opportunity to contest an order because the trade association would still face extensive legal involvement in proving innocence—or, by default, submit to an order on a matter it knew nothing about. It will not be good enough for the Minister to say that the court will always do its utmost to avoid the unwarranted involvement of a trade association in an order. Thus, in this respect the orders would only be those which appear to the court to be proper to ensure that restrictions do not operate against the public interest. The burden of proof will be on the trade association and that proof could be expensive.
There are other difficulties which face a trade association such as the National Federation of Retail Newsagents. It has 30,000 members and it is impossible to

know what all those members may do and it is unreasonable to hold an association responsible when there is no evidence whatever for the association to believe that its members are acting in a particular way. This pinpoints a basic failing in the legislation, which is that such associations will be considered guilty unless they can prove their innocence to the satisfaction of the Restrictive Practices Court. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas) said in Committee, this is and always will be contrary to the British judicial concept that a man is innocent until he is proved guilty—indeed, my hon. Friend went further and said that it is contrary to the concept of natural justice.
Let me relate the experience of the National Federation of Retail Newsagents. There have been occasions on which reports have been received at its headquarters of local action by individual traders which the general secretary has instantly condemned as contrary to the restrictive practices legislation. Sometimes the traders concerned have been federation members, and sometimes not. But in all cases the message from the headquarters has been the same, and here I quote the words of the general secretary:
Report the facts to the Registrar within seven days or I will do it from the federation headquarters.
Thus the federation has tried to adjust its conduct to the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, no matter how painful on occasion this has been.
The clause threatens to make life intolerable for the federation. Obviously in future the federation will not act in such a responsible manner if by so doing it lands itself with a court order. It also follows that if a trade association learns of a local restriction, the realisation that it will as a result be subjected to a national order will surely tempt the trade association to widen it to become a national restriction—on the principle of "In for a penny, in for a pound".
The right hon. and learned Gentleman last night conceded that the Restrictive Trade Practices Act presents problems for the federation and for similar associations. He praised the diagnosis put forward by the Opposition though he could not accept the prescription.
The Minister kindly offered to receive further representations before the Bill goes to another place, and that offer is gratefully received. But it is recognised that the onus is on the federation committee to provide that prescription and that will be extremely difficult, even over a longer period of time than that necessarily available between now and when the Bill goes to another place. The Minister has an opportunity to redress the balance by accepting this amendment.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Millan: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy). This matter was dealt with in Committee when the Under-Secretary did not quite understand the point which I was making. It was not then adequately answered but he has sent me a letter since explaining what the Government had in mind. The clause allows orders to be made against trade associations even when, in the words of the clause, the trade association may not be involved in any way in the agreement which has fallen foul of the restrictive trade practices legislation and which is the subject of a court order.
I moved an amendment in Committee. It was not to eliminate this provision— for I agree that there should be an extension of the powers of the court to trade associations—but to limit it to situations where either directly or indirectly the trade association had been involved or there was a reasonable apprehension that without the order the trade association would be involved in the agreement directly or indirectly or would be involved directly or indirectly in encouraging others of its members to enter into similar agreements. It seemed that that was as far, in terms of natural justice, as we ought to go, but it was not accepted in Committee. From what the Under-Secretary has told me in his letter it is clear that the Government are not disposed to accept it now.
Judging from the letter it seems the Government are unpersuaded. The Minister said in his letter that if the circumstances arise which I fear where a trade association is liable to be in danger even though it is not in any way involved in the agreement:
… it is hardly conceivable that the court would make an order against a trade association.

If it is hardly conceivable, or the Government do not intend that an order should be made in these circumstances, why on earth is the clause expressed in these terms and why cannot the Government accept the amendment? This amendment covers every conceivable circumstance in which one would reasonably wish the court to make an order. But the clause goes wider than that. It says that there does not even have to be an apprehension, fear or expectation that the trade association which is behaving well now will behave badly in the future. Provided that one of the parties to the agreement is a member of the trade association the order can be made—[Interruption.]
I should appreciate it if the Minister would listen to the argument. As I said earlier, he did not appear to understand it in Committee and it would be nice to have an answer now. If it is not the Government's intention to give the court power to act against a trade association except in the kind of circumstances which are outlined in this amendment, then it is entirely wrong that the clause should be drafted in an even wider way. The implication must be, if the clause is more widely drawn, that there is an expectation that the legislation intends the court to act even in circumstances in which the trade association is not involved, directly or indirectly.
If this matter came before a court, it seems to me that the court would be bound to take the view that since there was no restriction in the clause it was not the intention of the legislation that the court should act only in these restricted circumstances but that it should act even where it could not be shown that the trade association was directly or indirectly involved.
The question arises whether the registrar under the existing legislation or the Director General under the new legislation would be likely to bring an action against the trade association in those circumstances. It might be argued that that would be so unjust as to be unlikely to happen. But I do not think that that is the situation. I think that the registrar now or the Director General in the future might simply take the view that, having gone to the trouble of getting a court order against certain parties and knowing that some of them were members of a


trade association, he would tidy up the operation by getting an order against the trade association as well, even though it had not behaved disagreeably in the past and there was no expectation that it would in the future. It might simply be looked upon as a nice, tidy operation which took care of everything at one go and avoided the necessity of having to go back and to get a separate order against the trade association if the need should arise. That is what the clause allows the Director General to do and the court to do, given that an application is made.
I feel strongly about this because, although I am not a lawyer I have studied the matter carefully and consulted a lawyer about it. It seems to me that we are giving powers well beyond those which are needed. This amendment is very wide. It gives all the powers which could be reasonably needed by the Director General or by the court in making on order in any circumstances. I hope, even at this late stage, that the Minister will accept the amendment.

Mr. Emery: The amendment seeks to ensure that an order may be made against a trade association or a person acting on its behalf only if that trade association or person has procured or abetted the condemned agreement.
If the amendment were accepted the effect of it would extend to the provisions of Section 21A contained in Clause 101 by virtue of the reference to Section 20(3) in Section 21A(4).
The Government believe the amend-to be unnecessary. A similar amendment was moved in Committee, and I know that hon. Members showed some concern about it. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) did not think that I fully understood the points which he made in Committee. I recall that the amendment sought to make it possible for an order to be made against a trade association because a member was party to a condemned agreement and only if that was the case.
I agreed to look into this matter and consideration has been given to it not only by myself but by our legal advisers. It was because I thought it a matter of considerable concern to the hon. Gentleman that I wrote to him on 10th May.
The point about which we must be clear is that the court can already make an order against a trade association which is a party to a condemned agreement. I do not believe there is any disagreement on either side of the House on that point. The new provision will enable the court to make an order against a trade association which administers or operates an agreement though not a party to it. The court has always taken the utmost care to avoid any unwarranted involvement of trade associations in its orders. That is a matter of fact, not opinion.
The hon. Members for Sheffield, Atter-cliffe (Mr. Duffy) and Craigton, in moving and supporting the amendment, expressed an opinion which seemed to cast considerable doubt on the action that the court could take. Orders which may be made under the Act can be made only if they
appear to the court to be proper
to ensure that the restrictions which are found to be against the public interest may not be operated.

Mr. Millan: Where does that phrase occur?

Mr. Emery: Section 20(3) of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1956 provides,
the court may … make such order as appears to the court to be proper for restraining all or any of the persons party to the agreement who carry on business in the United Kingdom ".
Viewed in this light it is hardly conceivable that the court would make an order against a trade association merely because one of its members was a party to a condemned agreement. That was the fear expressed by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe.
The fears expressed by the hon. Member for Craigton went perhaps a little further. I will ensure that the arguments that he has propounded in support of the amendment are looked at again. We will always do that where we consider that a major concern is being expressed on a point of detail.
I do not believe that the hon. Members for Sheffield, Attercliffe and Glasgow, Craigton have taken fully into account the provisions relating to the safeguard in the court. I have no reason to back down from the Government's view that what we are doing is correct. However, if hon. Gentlemen opposite or


the association to which reference has been made still feel that there is a genuine point which is not safeguarded by the Bill, we will consider it. Having already reconsidered it once, it would be fair to say that it is unlikely that we would alter our view. I will undertake to look again.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Millan: I am not a lawyer but I do not see that the words which the Minister quoted as being some kind of qualifying words do, in fact, have that effect. All they say is that a court may make such an order as appear to the court to be proper. If the court is given power to do certain things and that power is not qualified in any way, that does not seem to be a qualification on the court saying that it will do only what it thinks to be proper to achieve certain objectives.
There is complete discretion in the hands of the court, and that phrase does not qualify it. I do not think that that answers the argument. I take the view that if legislation gives the court certain powers it must be assumed that the intention of the legislation is that in certain circumstances the court will use these powers to the full. It is useless to argue that we need not worry about the wording of the legislation, that even if it contains quite excessive powers we can rely on the good sense of the court not to use them.
That seems a poor argument in this or any other context. If it is intended that the power should be exercised only in certain circumstances, then these circumstances should be outlined in the legislation. I welcome the fact that the Minister will look at it again, but I repeat that the words in our amendment give every opportunity to the court to exercise its powers in every kind of circumstance in which it would be reasonable and consistent with natural justice that these powers should be used. The wording in the clause goes well beyond that. It does not provide the kind of safeguards which, in a matter of this sort, we should have provided for the party being operated against by a court order.

Mr. Emery: I want to try to help the hon. Member as much as I can. He is

not impressed by the structure within the Act, as it will be. The orders which will be made are orders which appear to the court to be proper to ensure that restrictions found to be against the public interest may not operate. Surely no one would suggest that the court would do other than that. The court could make an order against a trade association, if it administered or operated an agreement which was not thought to be proper although it was not a party to it. That is of considerable importance. The fears being expressed are to be viewed in the light that the court would not make an order against a trade association merely because one of its members was party to a condemned agreement. It reduces the argument to absurdity. Nothing is achieved by the amendment that we are not able to ensure in the Bill. For that reason the amendment is unnecessary.

Mr. Duffy: I share the anxieties expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Craigton (Mr. Millan). I listened with interest to what the Minister said and I will want to study it later. I hope that he will look again at our amendment, which has merit. In view of the undertaking which he has given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 104

DESIGNATED SERVICES

Amendment made: No. 71, in page 77, line 43, after 'Schedule', insert:
'(Services excluded from sections 14, 102 and 104)'.—[Mr. Emery.]

Clause 113

PUBLICATION OF INFORMATION AND ADVICE BY DIRECTOR

Amendments made: No. 72, in page 88, line 3, leave out 'The Director' and insert:
'With respect to any matter in respect of which the Director has any duties under section 2(1) of this Act, he'.

No. 73, in line 5, leave out from 'advice' to 'as' in line 6.—[Mr. Emery.]

Clause 123

FINANCIAL PROVISIONS

Amendments made: No. 74, in page 94, line 14, leave out 'officers and servants' and insert 'staff'.

No. 75, in line 29, leave out 'officers or servants' and insert 'staff'.

No. 76, in line 32, leave out 'officer or servant' and insert 'of his staff'.—[Mr. Emery.]

Clause 125

GENERAL INTERPRETATION PROVISIONS

Amendments made: No. 77, in page 96, line 4, at end insert:
'"consumer" (subject to subsection (4A) of this section) means any person who is either:

(a) a person to whom goods are or are sought to be supplied (whether by way of sale or otherwise) in the course of a business carried on by the person supplying or seeking to supply them, or
(b) a person for whom services are or are sought to be supplied in the course of a business carried on by the person supplying or seeking to supply them,

and who does not receive or seek to receive the goods or services in the course of a business carried on by him'.

No. 78, in page 96, line 24, leave out 'officers and servants' and insert 'staff'.

No. 79, in page 97, line 30, at end insert:
'(4A) For the purposes of the application of any provision of this Act in relation to goods or services of a particular description or to which a particular practice applies, "consumers" means persons who are consumers (as defined by subsection (2) of this section) in relation to goods or services of that description or in relation to goods or services to which that practice applies '.—[Mr. Emery.]

Clause 126

SUPPLEMENTARY INTERPRETATION PROVISIONS

Amendments made: No. 80, in page 97, line 44, leave out 'provisions of sections' and insert:
'following provisions of this Act, that is to say, section'.

No. 81, in line 45, leave out from '2(3) to end and insert:

'Parts II and III, section 125(4A), and the definition of "consumer" contained in section 125(2).'.—[Mr. Emery.]

New Schedule

SERVICES EXCLUDED FROM SECTIONS 14, 102 AND 104

1. Legal services (that is to say, the services of barristers, advocates or solicitors in their capacity as such).

2. Medical services (that is to say, the provision of medical or surgical advice or attendance and the performance of surgical operations).

3. Dental services (that is to say, any services falling within the practice of dentistry within the meaning of the Dentists Act 1957).

4. Ophthalmic services (that is to say, the testing of sight).

5. Veterinary services (that is to say, any services which constitute veterinary surgery within the meaning of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966).

6. Nursing services (that is to say, any services which constitute nursing within the meaning of the Nurses Act 1957, the Nurses (Scotland) Act 1951 or the Nurses and Midwives Act (Northern Ireland) 1970).

7. The services of midwives, physiotherapists or chiropodists in their capacity as such.

8. The services of architects in their capacity as such.

9. Accounting and auditing services (that is to say, the making or preparation of accounts or accounting records and the examination, verification and auditing of financial statements).

10. The services of patent agents (within the meaning of the Patents Act 1949), in their capacity as such.

11. The services of parliamentary agents entered in the register in either House of Parliament as agents entitled to practise both in promoting and in opposing Bills, in their capacity as such parliamentary agents.

12. The services of surveyors (that is to say, of surveyors of land, of quantity surveyors, of surveyors of buildings or other structures and of surveyors of ships) in their capacity as such surveyors.

13. The services of professional engineers or technologists (that is to say, of persons practising or employed as consultants in the field of:

(a) civil engineering;
(b) mechanical, aeronautical, marine, electrical or electronic engineering;
(c) mining, quarrying, soil analysis or other forms of minerology or geology;
(d) agronomy, forestry, livestock rearing or ecology;
(e) metallurgy, chemistry, biochemistry or physics; or
(f) any other form of engineering or technology analogous to those mentioned in the preceding sub-paragraphs),


in their capacity as such engineers or technologists.

14. Services consisting of the provision:

(a) of primary, secondary or further education within the meaning of the Education Act 1944, the Education (Scotland) Acts 1939 to 1971 or the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1972, or
(b) of university or other higher education not falling within the preceding sub-paragraph.

15. The services of ministers of religion in their capacity as such ministers.—[Mr. Emery.]

Brought up. read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Schedule 1

DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FAIR TRADING

Amendments made: No. 83, in page 100, line 31, leave out 'officer' and insert 'person'.

No, 84, in line 34, leave out 'officer' and insert 'person'.—[Mr. Emery.]

Schedule 3

THE MONOPOLIES AND MERGERS COMMISSION

Amendments made: No. 85, in page 102, line 17, at end insert:
'(2) A person shall not be appointed to be a regular member of the Commission for a term exceeding five years; but previous membership shall not affect eligibility for re-appointment '.

No. 86, in line 42, leave out 'officers and servants' and insert 'staff'.

No. 87, in page 103, line 6, leave out 'officers and servants' and insert 'the staff'.

No. 88, in line 42, after 'reference', insert:
'or on a merger reference'.

No. 89, in line 42, after 'Act', insert: 'or, in the case of a merger reference, under section (Variation of certain merger references) of this Act'.—[Mr. Emery.]

Schedule 7

POWERS EXERCISABLE BY ORDERS UNDER SECTIONS 56 AND 72

Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment No. 90, in page 109, line 48, at end insert:

'(1A) An order may provide for the repayment by any person who has supplied the goods or services specified or described in the order (the supplier) to any person who has purchased such goods or services (the purchaser) of such sums as the Minister may consider appropriate to compensate the purchaser for excessive prices charged for such goods or services by the supplier'.
Schedule 7 deals with the various powers of the Minister on receipt of a Monopolies Commission report. The amendment provides that an order made on receipt of such a report could contain a power to compel the monopolist concerned to repay excess profits which he has made from the unfair exercise of his monopoly. It does not require a great deal of perception to see that this amendment is not unconnected with the recent Monopolies Commission report on Roche.
I shall not develop the point at any great length. It is one of the unsatisfactory features of the present situation and it has been well demonstrated by the recent report on Roche that there is no power to recover money which may have been obtained by the monopolist from an undue exercise of his monopoly power. We get the rather disagreeable spectacle of the Government having to attempt to negotiate with such a firm repayments in compensation for excessive prices charged for such drugs over a period of years when it has already been made clear by the company that it has no intention of repaying anything.
The Roche case is unusual in a number of respects, the particular respect in this context being that the National Health Service—and, therefore, the taxpayer— was the main purchaser of the goods concerned. If this amendment were approved it would be comparatively easy to estimate and obtain the necessary refunds to for the excessive prices charged. In other circumstances it might be a much more complicated operation. I would point out that other countries adopt a much tougher financial line with monopolists who have been found to abuse their monopoly power. Sometimes it is done by the imposition of very considerable fines, running into hundreds of thousands of pounds; sometimes it may be done in certain circumstances by providing for the repayment of excess prices charged.
In this country, on the whole we have adopted a far too passive rôle towards


monopolies and, having found abuses to be proved, we are not sufficiently aggressive in the actions we take. The Roche report is to some extent an exception to the rule, because it was an unusual report in which the power to reduce the prices was recommended and has been used by the Government, and we fully support them in this situation. But it is still true that in the Roche case a substantial sum of money—millions of pounds—is involved in excessive prices charged directly to the taxpayers through the National Health Service over a period of years, and there is literally nothing in our monopolies legislation even to allow a legal attempt to recover that money.
This is a serious defect in our monopolies legislation. I would not pretend that the amendment, even if it were technically proficient and effective, would be sufficient to do the job which has to be done. But I think that the Roche case emphasises the necessity for filling this gap in our legislation. We should now adopt the principle—this would only follow from a report of the Monopolies Commission, so there would be no question of the Government thinking something up for themselves and using the power without a recommendation—of making provision for the recovery of compensation from the monopolist for excessive prices charged in the past and for the abuse of monopoly power.
The purpose of the amendment is to raise the principle now at this very late stage of the Bill. Even if the amendment itself may not technically be sufficient to achieve the purpose I have in mind, it is very important that we should raise the principle, which is one that we should try, despite the difficulties in the way, to write into our monopolies legislation.

Mr. Emery: In contrast with the last amendment, I have considerable sympathy with the expression of view by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) in the concept he has just argued. The amendment would widen the scope of the powers which may be exercised under Clauses 56 and 72 following an adverse report from the Monopolies Commission. The powers suggested are very extensive. They would enable an order to be made requiring the supplier who had charged excessive prices to compensate the purchaser.
Obviously, as the hon. Gentleman said, closely in our minds is the scandalous overcharging we have seen in the Roche case. But I think we have to make it clear that any amendment to this Bill would have no effect on what had happened prior to the Bill. That follows the principle which the Labour Government adopted in the 1965 Act when they took powers of divestment.
There are considerable practical difficulties in using a power of this kind, when more than a few buyers are involved. In the Roche case it is more simple. In the case of many other monopoly reports, on grounds of practicability such a power could not be operated sensibly, especially if there were millions of claims from individuals who might have dealt with, or traded in, the product which the Monopolies Commission had considered.
9.45 p.m.
The hon. Gentleman stressed that monopoly legislation outside this country was, in certain instances, stronger and firmer than our own. I suggest that he looks at this fairly closely because in many instances it is not really operating. As regards the monopolies legislation in America, its application is much less effective and certainly much less respected than is the case in Great Britain.
However, I do not want to suggest that I am closing my mind to, or debarring myself from, the possibility of thinking further on the line of compensation when I say that I cannot, at this late stage of the Bill, accept the amendment. I have made it clear that we would want to look in depth at the practicalities of being able to do this. Therefore, even without a more positive response from the Government, the hon. Gentleman may be pleased that he put down the amendment.

Mr. Millan: It is rather pleasant since this is the last amendment I shall move to the Bill, to say that that has been a most helpful reply from the Under-Secre-tary. I am glad he accepts the seriousness of the situation and that the Government are willing to look at it.
As I made clear in my remarks in moving the amendment, I did not believe that our proposal by itself could possibly suffice to do the job. The point definitely requires to be aired. If the Roche report had come two months ago, when we were


in the middle of our Committee stage, we might then have made considerable attempts to produce something much more sophisticated than this amendment to see whether the matter could be dealt with.
It may be that in another place, when the Bill gets there, there will be an attempt to deal with this situation in a better way than that provided by the amendment. It is a matter of considerable difficulty.
I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for saying that the Government are considering the matter. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 10

TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AND SAVINGS

Amendment made: No. 91, in page 115, line 27, leave out 'officer or servant' and insert 'of the staff'.—[Sir G. Howe.]

Schedule 11

ENACTMENTS AMENDEDK

Amendments made: No. 92, in page 119, line 44, leave out 'officer or servant'.

No. 93, in page 119, line 45, after 'Commission', insert 'or to any of the staff of that Commission'.

No. 94, in page 119, line 47, leave out 'officer or servant' and insert 'of the staff'.

No. 95, in page 120, line 12, leave out 'officer or servant'.

No. 96, in page 120, line 13, after 'Commission', insert:
'or to any of the staff of that Commission'.

No. 97, in page 120, line 15, leave out officer or servant' and insert 'of the staff'.—[Sir G. Howe.]

Motion made and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

9.49 p.m.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I welcome the Bill in general. Indeed, as a member of the back-bench Consumer Committee, I have been pressing for this type of legislation for some time.
There is one aspect of the Bill which worries me. I am concerned that the

effect of the Bill may be quite unwittingly to hamper progress towards the co-operation which is vital to the farming industry. It seems a little absurd that under the Bill the grouping of 20 or 30 tiny farms, with small capital, can be held to be restrictive, unless they have cumbersome constitutions laid down in orders issued under the Agricultural and Forestry Association Act 1962. The recommendations of a trade association such as the National Farmers Union has also to be considered—the sort of advice that a farm which is well below the £5 million limit of the Bill could ill-afford to provide with its own resources and which farmers expect to get from their union.
For many years, throughout my lifetime, farmers have been urged to cooperate for many agricultural purposes, in buying and selling machinery and produce. We have had the gibe thrown at us that we buy retail and sell wholesale and that we are miles behind the Danes and the Dutch in this regard. When we tried to put our house in order and bring our marketing and buying practices up to date, we were horrified as farmers by a decision of the Restrictive Trade Practices Court that advice given by the NFU to its members was not lawful. This has caused much anxiety to the many farmers' co-operatives, which do not know how far they can go under this law.
The Minister said on Second Reading —the matter also came up in Committee—that the special problems and needs of agriculture should be brought forward in an agriculture Bill, but this may not be done for some time. Meanwhile, the growth and spread of farm co-operatives is being considerably hampered. I ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister to consider this problem further before that time comes and before further damage is done to the spread of co-operation, and perhaps to bring in amendments in another place.

9.52 p.m.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: On Second Reading, the Bill was accorded a warm welcome in principle by both sides of the House and was generally accepted as a very valuable measure. In the Consumers Association memorandum which was quoted this afternoon, it was described as a means by which practices which harmed consumers could be


quickly and effectively controlled, and it was said that the people concerned would find it much more difficult in future to get away with such practices.
The Bill has been greatly and specifically improved on Report and has benefited from contributions from both sides in Committee. I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the magnificent lead they have given throughout the stages of the Bill. Last but not least, I congratulate the Government on introducing the Bill, to their significant credit.

9.53 p.m.

Mr. Alan Williams: After tonight's proceedings, I have a feeling that there will be a considerable gap in my life. However, there are some losses that I can bear more readily than others.
This has been a lengthy process but, as the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Sally Oppenheim) correctly said, it has been constructive. I shall not pretend that it has not had its crises, and there have been clashes of somewhat different Celtic temperaments, but we have survived those crises and the Bill has come out of Committee and through Report a better Bill than it started. I welcome it. It should do a great deal to ease the position of consumers in future.
If any lesson has emerged, it must surely be that, when as complex a piece of legislation as this comes forward in future, regardless of who is in office, it is imperative to have a White Paper. I am sure that, in retrospect, the Ministers feel the same. Much of the Committee debate could have been avoided if we had known the intentions of the Bill and the relationships within it. A further recognition of this need was in the large number of Government new clauses which had to appear in Committee and on Report; indeed, almost a mini-Bill was added in that form.
I pay credit to the Minister for having tried in many instances to take into account and to meet the points that were argued on a non-partisan basis in Committee. This was not a partisan Bill. There were differences, but they were not necessarily on party lines. They were differences of approach, which existed on both sides, to the problem of consumerism.
I still reserve my position on the professions and on the extension of scope to health and safety, but I can now leave it to my noble Friends in another place to pursue those issues. I wish the Bill well and hope that it makes speedy progress, both for its own sake and for the sake of my noble Friends. I congratulate the Ministers on having survived the ordeal.

Sir G. Howe: If I remember one thing about the proceedings on this Bill in all places—I say this without prejudice and without malice—it will be a picture of the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Alan Williams) uttering to all and sundry the merits of a White Paper. We knew we were getting back on course during our long proceedings in Committee when, having indulged in one of our mutual Celtic exchanges of view, the hon. Member returned to the familiar path of urging the Government to have regard to the need for a White Paper. The lesson has been well rehearsed. How far it has been absorbed has yet to be seen.
I should like to join the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) and my two hon. Friends, the Members for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) and for Gloucester (Mrs. Sally Oppenheim), in thanking all those, on both sides, who took part in the Committee proceedings on the Bill, and indeed on Report, for the non-partisan way in which they have contributed to the improvement of this very important measure. We have not been able to see completely eye to eye on every aspect of it but I think both sides have agreed that it represents a new, coherent approach by the Government to the protection of the community against commercial malpractices whether or not they arise from restrictions on competition.
I like to believe that the case is also now well understood that the Bill is evidence of the Government's determination to tackle consumer problems on the widest front and make the fullest use of the powers they already have as well as the new powers contained in the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster has at this stage raised a point which was raised in the very first stages of our discussions and also in Committee —namely, the impact on agricultural cooperatives. The activities of farmers' co-operatives, as she said, already enjoy


substantial relief from the legislation to which she referred. The existence of many thriving co-operatives of that kind suggests that that legislation has been effective. There may, however, be other developments which are not covered by that legislation, and others may arise from the Green Paper on Agricultural and Horticultural Marketing which has been introduced. My hon. Friend urged that this should be dealt with in the context of the Bill, but she may prefer to conclude that it is better considered as an agricultural matter by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who is giving very careful consideration to it and is taking full account of the co-operative activities to which she referred.
I do not think I should say more at this stage, save perhaps to note the remarkable contributions made in Committee— if I may single out any hon. Members for particular honours—by my hon. Friends the Members for Merton and Morden (Miss Fookes) and for Gloucester, and at this stage by two other hon. Ladies, my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) and for Lancaster. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Miss Joan Hall) contributed to the proceedings in these two stages. We have been glad to have their support and encouragement during the proceedings and I am happy to welcome what hon. Members have said about the Bill at this stage.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

WAYS AND MEANS

OVERSEAS LIFE INSURANCE COMPANIES

Resolved,

That provision may be made for restricting the effect of section 516 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970.—[Mr. Patrick Jenkin.]

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Jopling.]

SPORTS COUNCIL

10 p.m.

Miss Joan Hall: I should like to raise the question of the allocation of Government money to the Sports Council and how this is then apportioned to the sports bodies who would like financial assistance, and in particular in relation to the Steeton Football Club which is situated in my constituency and is a club of enthusiastic amateur footballers.
Yorkshire is noted for many things, not least for a keen interest in all types of sporting activity. The Leeds football team, which this year was in the final of the cup—although not the victors they put up a very good performance—and, as Mr. Speaker himself knows only too well, the Rugby League final this year was an all-Yorkshire affair, with Featherstone Rovers and Bradford Northern playing to a fighting finish at Wembley. I hope that the Yorkshire cricket team will do better for the rest of the season than it did in the opening game last Saturday.
Those are clubs whose names are familiar throughout the country. They are lively and enthusiastic, but most of them are professionals. However, as I said initially, Steeton Football Club is composed of enthusiastic amateurs, and that last point is important because since this matter was raised with me by members of the club it has made me question exactly how much voluntary sports organisations are being helped financially with Government money.
Steeton village is situated in a rural environment within the Keighley constituency. It now has more than 2,000 inhabitants and is growing rapidly for the West Riding, if not as fast as the villages in the south-eastern area of the United Kingdom. This is due to the new housing estates, and the people who are living on them are in the main working in Keighley, Bradford and Leeds.
Steeton Football Club has been in existence since 1908, and it has been on its present site since 1966. That is the Doris Wells Memorial Ground which the club rents from Steeton Parish Council on a 99-year lease at a nominal rent of 5p per year. The club started to play on


this ground in 1968, after two years of hard work putting the ground in working order, and over a period of four years the average of 50 paid-up members have raised £4,000.
The membership fee is 50p per annum, and the £4,000 was raised by the extremely hard work of the members, their families and friends in any way possible, such as raffles, sponsored walks and dances. The money has been spent on providing club headquarters, which are adequate but without any frills and merely provide changing and tea facilities. The members would like to make this building more attractive both for players and for spectators, and they would also like to provide a car park, which is necessary in this day of mobility, a training area and some form of flood lighting, and to improve the condition of the ground. They believe that they would need about £2,000 to do all that.
It is important also to point out that the ground is used every night by children who live in the village, although it is a private ground, and in this respect provides a social need to keep the children off the streets and in an area where they can let off their energy in constructive sporting activities instead of, as so often happens today, in sheer vandalism. There are also discussions going on with the village school for the children to use the ground during the day for their sports activities.
The club provides two teams, which play every weekend during the season. It used to have a junior team, but the ground just could not take the amount of hard work with three teams, and this is one reason why the club wishes to have a better ground—so that it can again provide a junior team.
When the members of the club came to see me last year they said that it was not the first time they had tried to get financial assistance, but they had come up against a full stop at every comer. Naturally enough I can understand their feelings of aggrievement when, as they said to me, those who have most seem to be given more but those who have nothing get absolutely no help. In other words, the rather large, swish sports complexes seem to have Government money to help them, but a small group seems to have nothing coming its way at all.
Therefore, I took this matter up with the Minister. He kindly wrote to me saying that the Sports Council had assumed full responsibility on 1st April 1972 for decisions to grant money for sports projects. It is interesting that in 1971–72 the Government channelled to the Sports Council £3·26 million. This year the amount has increased to £3·68 million.
Following receipt of the Minister's letter I wrote to the Chairman of the Sports Council, Dr. Roger Bannister. He replied saying that the Government had decided that grants for local schemes, save in exceptional circumstances—I should like to know what "exceptional circumstances" are—should be the responsibility of local authorities.
I then wrote to the West Riding County Council, but the county council's reply was that after due consideration it had been decided that no financial assistance could be given by the county council to projects put forward by any voluntary sports organisation. I felt that this was a very sad reflection on the county council, and particularly on a Conservative-controlled council.
I also approached Skipton Rural District Council but, with Steeton being taken out of its area in the local government reorganisation, it felt that it would not be able to contribute.
I have also contacted the steering group for District 6A—now the elected Bradford District Council—which said, as is so often the case at present, that it could do nothing until the new local authority was elected. But this local authority will not start in proper business until 1974.
Steeton Football Club approached the regional sports council in Leeds last year and met its secretary, who said that there was no chance of its getting a grant but that if Steeton wanted to have a skating rink, a bowling alley or a sailing club, it could then be helped. I cannot for the life of me see why those categories should be helped but not football, which is certainly a much more widespread and popular sport.
I have described in detail the approaches I have made to show that I have left no stone unturned. But I have met a definite stone wall at every corner.
The group in question is comprised of hard-working people. I am sure they


would not mind my saying that they are very ordinary citizens. They appear to be able to get no help. That is a very sad reflection at present when surely we should be giving every assistance to those who are prepared to help themselves. In this case it would be only to the tune of up to £2,000, which is nothing when compared with the amount of money that is approved in this Chamber and in local authority chambers very often "on the nod". It is a very sad reflection on a Conservative Government and the Conservative-controlled West Riding County Council, which I had hoped would have more consideration for voluntary organisations. But that has not appeared to be so.
Therefore, I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary two specific questions. Is it not possible for him to try to do something to see that the Steeton Football Club could at least get something towards the £2,000 that it requires? Secondly, as my hon. Friend is a very able person, can he not give more impetus to local authorities to consider specifically the needs of voluntary sports organisations which have particularly shown by their previous hard work that they are worthy of help and consideration?
While I do not like the central Government telling local authorities what to do, in this case they certainly need to be told in no uncertain terms that in 1973 a Conservative Government feel that far more consideration should be given to voluntary groups, particularly sports groups, and that it is not good enough to say that they cannot be considered for grant.

10.10 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): I at once congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Miss Joan Hall) on the force with which she has put forward the arguments on behalf of the Steeton Football Club in her constituency. I shall try first to answer her two questions. In reply to the first, I should remind her that the Sports Council was given by Her Majesty, at the request of the Government, a Royal Charter setting it up as an independent executive body under the chairmanship of Dr. Roger Bannister. Since that time the council

quite rightly has made its own decisions about how it should disburse the substantially larger sums of money that my Department has been able to provide. I am sure my hon. Friend will accept that if a Government set up an independent executive body and ask it to undertake a particular and very important job, Ministers should not compromise that independence and executive function by interfering, whether for good or bad, and telling that body what to do.
The Sports Council is an able and responsible body consisting of people from all walks of sporting life under an admirable chairman, and I have every confidence that it disburses the funds available to it in the best possible way for the overall needs of sport. I would not be prepared to seek to interfere, even if I had the power, in the council's discharge of its functions.
My hon. Friend asked whether it was possible for me to provide additional impetus to get local authorities to assist local clubs. Locally-elected authorities are responsible in the first instance to their own electorate and their ratepayers and it must be for them to judge the local needs of their areas. It would be wholly wrong for Ministers to seek to tell any local authority how it should disburse its ratepayers' money in respect of local needs.
However, I must remind my hon. Friend that when the changes in the administration of grants by the Sports Council were made by our circular 2/70, we went out of our way to put the point very clearly to local authorities, and I shall refer my hon. Friend to our later circular of 5th January 1973. In paragraph 12 we say:
Local authorities have for many years had powers, e.g. under the Physical Training and Recreation Acts, to grant-aid local clubs. By many authorities these powers have been used little or not at all.
I hope that those authorities in the West Riding are not among the ones who are described in that paragraph as using those powers
little or not at all".
I hope that the West Riding authorities will be among those in the country which will use the powers of the Physical Training and Recreation Acts to assist local clubs to the full. It is, however, a matter they must determine for themselves.
My hon. Friend will notice a little later in the same paragraph:
In the past local sports clubs could receive a grant from central funds of up to 50℅ of the cost of a scheme with a maximum of £10,000.
Then we say:
Local authorities …will wish to keep this new factor in mind and consider what share of resources should be allocated.
My point is that the responsibility rightly rests with the local authorities, and I hope—and I go no further than that—that both the district authority which will be taking over, I understand, from the Skipton rural district and the new county authority, which I understand will be the Bradford metropolitan area, will consider the implications of the circular and will have regard to the needs of all the local clubs, including the Steeton club mentioned by my hon. Friend, when they come to decide how best to allocate the resources available to them. I understand from the West Riding County Council that it is prepared to allot up to £5,000 to assist any local club which has been the object of assistance from a district authority. Perhaps that has been the difficulty. It seems that the district authority has not been willing to contribute and that the West Riding County Council was not willing to contribute either.

Miss Hall: No doubt all the facts which my hon. Friend has given are true —in fact, I know that they are. When he goes round the country—I am sure that he goes to other areas besides the West Riding—I suggest that he asks local authorities what they are doing for voluntary organisations. I am a great believer in the personal touch. Such an approach might help to give some of the voluntary organisations a little more of a fillip. One of the troubles in the past has been that the local authorities are involved with the rather larger organisation. To be frank, some of the councillors are rather old and do not realise the changing social needs of the younger generation.

Mr. Griffiths: If it should be the case —and I am not in a position to comment —that some councillors are elderly or, as my hon. Friend implies, not closely in touch with the needs of young sportsmen, the remedy lies not with me nor with the Government but with the electorate

which puts the councillors into office. I must stress to my hon. Friend that it would be best if the club were to approach the district authority.
I wish the very best to my hon. Friend's constituents. I appreciate that the present district authority will go out of exist-ence and that there will be another one. However, the club must make its approach to that authority. I hope that it will do so in collaboration with the local education authority.
I understand from my hon. Friend that there was the prospect of dual use of the sports field concerned and that if assistance can be obtained from the local education authority the children will benefit greatly. If there can be a combine of other sports in the area—not simply football but many other sporting activities which might be able to share in the facilities provided at the club—and if contact is made with the regional sports council, it may be that a scheme can be put forward of a wider character than the present scheme which would be more likely to attract support from the district authority, and thereafter the county. In some circumstances, if the scheme provided a larger than local need, it is conceivable that there could be support from the Sports Council.
I urge my hon. Friend to get a group of different sports together, to link with the education authority and then to go back to the district authority and to urge it to follow the principles set out in the Government's circular.

Miss Hall: The Minister may be interested to know that the village cricket ground is next to the football ground and that there is land which was left as a memorial ground. That land could be used as a tennis court. A number of football club members come from Keigh-ley and are not village members. Its members come from the surrounding areas.

Mr. Griffiths: That is a good thing. I stress that it does not make sense for the cricket team and the football team to have facilities in different places and to have different car parks and showers. They must combine to reduce their overheads. In that way they will benefit from mutually used facilities. I am sure that in a combination they can do better.
I was glad that my hon. Friend spoke a little more widely about the situation of sport in Yorkshire generally and mentioned one or two famous clubs.
I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Leeds United on a splendid season, although the club did not win a trophy, and in offering the club all good wishes for even greater success at home and abroad next year.
Perhaps I might comment on the ending of this season of football. It is going out like a lion with a great deal of drama and dash on the field although I am sorry to say with deficits and decline on the terraces and in the boardroom. We saw the dash in Sunderland winning the FA Cup—perhaps that was the best shot in the arm that English football has had for many a long year. All four of the division championships were won by Lancashire teams—Liverpool in the first division, Burnley in the second, Bolton in the third and Southport in the fourth. Then there was the win by Liverpool over München Gladbach and the resounding victory of Leeds over Arsenal.
At the end of the season the two Charlton brothers will be retiring from the playing field. I am sure that the House will wish them well in their new posts. Thus the 1973 season comes to an end with drama and dash although the overall situation of football gives cause for deep concern.
Attendance is sharply down and many clubs—in fact most except a few at the top—are no longer paying their way through their footballing activities. Everyone, including my hon. Friend, who takes a great deal of interest in these matters, has his or her own theories about the reason for the decline. I have no doubt that the televising of football reduces the gates. There is the motor car, which gives greater mobility and takes away from town centre football grounds many people who have a greater range of opportunity for spending their Saturday afternoons. The movement out to the suburbs also has an influence on the reduction in gates. There is the sad evidence of bad behaviour and violence not only in the stands but on the playing field itself. Above all, there is the shift from watching to participating.
Generally speaking, the spectator sports such as horse racing and football— possibly even cricket—are suffering from a decline in attendances. Simultaneously, and perhaps more happily, the participation sports in which people play rather than watch—for example, golf and bowls —are thriving. That is especially true of three types of sports.
First, water sports. There are perhaps twice as many people "in and about boats" on Saturday afternoon as there are on all the football terraces. Water sports are thriving—above all fishing.
The court games, too, such as squash, badminton and tennis are thriving, largely, I suspect, because midde-age sport is growing and women are joining in. There is also a great increase in risk-exercise sports such as rock climbing, sky diving and sub-aqua diving. The young, in particular, seem to enjoy an element of danger in their sports.
Sport is no longer a matter of watching other people but of taking part oneself. The Sports Council has described this as "sport for all". It is in this connection that football has its difficulties.
The challenges before English football today are, first, the need to improve the game to make it more entertaining for those who watch it.
Secondly, there is the challenge of Europe. Britain has an unrivalled reputation in European football, yet there is a need for one of our great governing bodies to move into the European scene and to take a grip on the international organisation of fixtures, transfers and discipline so that all the European football teams operate more harmoniously together.
Third, there is a need to redevelop many of football's expensive city centre stadia so that multi-purpose sporting activities can take place there. In almost every great city the football ground occupies valuable real estate, but that real estate stands empty, producing no revenue, for six days a week for up to 20 weeks of the year. This is not a sensible way to manage a valuable asset.
Therefore, the time has come when more and more football clubs will have to find ways and means of joining other sports—particularly indoor sports, such as bowls, badminton, or other court activities—and of developing within their


grounds or under their new stands sporting activities which people of all ages can enjoy during the evening or, for example, in the case of the elderly, in the afternoon. In this way the ground can be used for six or seven days a week for 52 weeks of the year, thereby providing revenue which football so badly needs.
It was in this connection that I mentioned the attractive little club in Steeton in my hon. Friend's constituency, and I should like to see it getting together with other sports in the area. It no longer makes sense for each sport to organise itself without regard to other sporting activities. The Government wish to see dual use of our educational facilities, such as school playing grounds. I am sure that other facilities in the public sector, such as sports grounds belonging to the Armed Services or the nationalised industries, should also be brought more into community use. We want to see our natural resources, in particular our water resources, used more effectively for sport. The voluntary spirit of local people can do a great deal to make this possible.
The Government have provided the Sports Council with substantially more money, most of which is now used for the larger-than-local schemes. I believe that to be right because this is national money coming from the national taxpayer. If that were to continue to be

provided at the local level, I am afraid that many local authorities would simply sit back and provide very little themselves. This is borne out by experience.
Since we changed the rules and gave the Sports Council independent executive authority, focusing its funds on the larger-than-local-schemes, the local authorities, far from dropping their investment, as was feared, have generated an enormous increase. Whereas in the 1960s local authority provision was at a rate of £4 million to £6 million a year, under the present Government it has reached a figure of £18 million or £19 million—and this year more than £20 million—in addition to a further £11 million provided through the educational account. Therefore, there has been a real increase of local investment through the local authorities in terms of sporting facilities.
I very much hope that the West Riding, having heard the eloquent speech of my hon. Friend, will take note of the rapid increase in other parts of the country in local authority expenditure on local sport, may see the force of her argument and will see fit to provide some of the facilities for which she is pressing on behalf of the Steeton Football Club.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.